To cap it all now the new date has been thrown up for the real freedom of the country by none other than RSS Sarsanghchalak, Mohan Bhagwat. While addressing in Indore he stated that 22 January 2024 was the day when we got Independence, “the date should be celebrated as “Pratishtha Dwadashi” as the true independence of India, which had faced “parachakra” (enemy attack) for several centuries, was established on this day. The ideals and life values presented by Lord Ram, Krishna, and Shiva are included in the “self of India” and it is not at all that these are the Gods of only those people who worship them, he said.

Bhagwat further said that the invaders destroyed the temples of the country so that the “self” of India also perishes. Projecting Ram Temple Pran Pratishta (Life installation) as the panacea of all our social problems he further added, “I used to ask those people that despite talking about socialism after independence in 1947, giving slogans of ‘Garibi Hatao’ (eradicate poverty) and worrying about people’s livelihood all the time, where did India stand in the 1980s and where have countries like Israel and Japan reached?” The RSS chief said he used to tell these people that “India’s livelihood path goes through the entrance of Ram temple and they should keep this in mind.”

Bhagawat’s constructs are taking the story further and he wants to legitimize the criminal act of demolishing the Babri Mosque. Overarching the diverse cultural and religious traditions he wants to present only Lord Rama as the sole cultural symbol of this country. Even in the broad spectrum of Hinduism there are Lord Shiva, Lord Shrikrishna, Goddess Kali among others. Then we have the glorious traditions of Lord Mahavir, Gautam Buddha, Nanak and Kabir as the part of the great canvass, which India is.

While the population genetics studies clearly show that Aryans were also the migrants, before them there were other natives here. And diverse people coming here can either be seen merely as aggressors walking the path of ways of Kingdoms. Chola Kings ruled in Srilanka, or Alexander tried his best to win over India. Different dynasties and people like Shaka, Hun, Ghulams, Khalji and Mughal rules  were ‘part’ of the subcontinent. This is seen by sectarians as an attack on ‘our’ civilization while those who struggled for Independence of India from the British saw it as an intermixing of historical process; leading to the foundational diversity of the country. Jawaharlal Nehru most aptly describes it as, “some ancient palimpsest on which layer upon layer of thought and reverie had been inscribed, and yet no succeeding layer had completely hidden or erased what had been written previously.”

As per RSS chief the aggressors wanted to demolish our soul by demolishing our temples. The temple destructions in Medieval and late early India were purely for the sake of power and wealth. The earlier attacks and conversions of Jain and Buddha places of worship were due to reaction from Brahminism. To demonize particularly the Muslim rulers, this formulation of temple destructions and many other myths have been propped up. Two examples will suffice while Aurangzeb destroyed nearly 12 temples; he also gave donations to nearly hundred Hindu temples. The eleventh century ruler of Kashmir, Raja Harshdev, appointed a special officer to uproot the idols of Gods and Goddesses, which were made of Gold and Silver or studded with diamonds and rubies.

Bhagwat and his ilk see the country through a narrow Brahminical prism. It was during the colonial period that Indian boundaries emerged. It was the colonial period which was a period of slavery. The previous conquers who ruled settled here and became a part of our national and cultural life. The British ‘Policy of Divide and rule’ planted the notion of earlier rulers being the plunderers and temple destroyers. The previous rulers who ruled did not take away our wealth outside, while the British plunder project led to impoverishment of India. The slavery was imposed by the British and the struggle against them was the freedom movement which culminated in Independence on 15th August 1947, with our Constitution being implemented on 26 January 1950.

Those deviating from this date are the followers of nationalism under the garb of religion, who are uncomfortable with the values of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity of the Constitution which emerged from the freedom struggle.

He needs to introspect what the countries like Japan and Israel achieved through demolishing old holy places and building the one’s of their religion. He also needs to know that after the Ram Temple movement has picked up India’s growth and unity has seen a downward trend. There is a consistent fall in the various indices related to health, nutrition, educational status with increase in poverty levels.

The massive foundations for economic, educational, scientific and industrial prosperity were laid much before the divisive politics of Ram Temple got a boost in the decades of 1980 and 1990s. Bhagwat’s statement totally ignores the massive anti colonial movement. The reason for this is that those who stood for Hindu and Muslim nationalism were not the part of it. In a way his statement is a great insult to all those who sacrificed their live for the freedom of the country from the clutches of colonialism, the period of our slavery.

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author’s personal views, and do not necessarily represent the views of Sabrangindia.

The post When did India Get Independence? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Undermining the freedom struggle

Bhagwat’s assertion undermines the monumental significance of August 15, 1947, as the day marking India’s liberation from colonial rule. The sacrifices of figures like Mahatma Gandhi, Subhas Chandra Bose, Jawaharlal Nehru, Bhagat Singh, and numerous unsung heroes are side-lined in favour of an ideological claim. Rahul Gandhi denounced the remark as “insulting to freedom fighters,” while Jairam Ramesh characterised it as “anti-national” and reflective of an agenda to rewrite history. Leaders like Tejashwi Yadav noted that this narrative belittles the immense sacrifices made by the freedom fighters under Mahatma Gandhi’s leadership, disregarding their unparalleled contributions. Revanth Reddy, echoing these concerns, demanded that Prime Minister Modi clarify his position on Bhagwat’s remarks, questioning whether the government stands by the freedom fighters or supports this ideological stance.

Historical revisionism and its dangers

Shashi Tharoor warned against conflating India’s independence with ideological or religious milestones. He emphasized that independence was achieved through the collective sacrifices of patriots who endured British oppression, including incarceration and execution. Tharoor cautioned that attempts to redefine this historical truth risk diminishing its universal and inclusive nature. Digvijaya Singh echoed these concerns, demanding an apology from Bhagwat and criticizing the divisive undertones of the statement.

Assault on constitutional values

The remarks challenge the principles enshrined in India’s Constitution, adopted on January 26, 1950. By linking independence to a religious event, Bhagwat’s comments contradict the secular and pluralistic ethos envisioned by the framers of the Constitution, including Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. Jairam Ramesh argued that such rhetoric undermines the democratic foundation of the Republic, disrespecting the Constitution’s commitment to equality and unity.

Political and social implications

The political backlash to Bhagwat’s statement has been unequivocal. West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee labelled the remarks “anti-national” and “dangerous,” highlighting their potential to distort history and disrupt social harmony. The National Students’ Union of India (NSUI), led by Varun Choudhary, called for stringent action against the RSS, asserting that Bhagwat’s rhetoric threatened the nation’s unity and integrity. Shashi Tharoor pointed out that linking independence to religious milestones risks alienating minority communities and rewriting India’s collective historical achievements. Sachin Pilot also voiced strong opposition, condemning the remark as an affront to the sacrifices of countless freedom fighters. He criticized the government for weakening constitutional institutions and fostering an environment where such divisive statements are normalised.

Divisive ideology and historical context

Critics like Tejashwi Yadav and Digvijaya Singh underscored the RSS’s historical non-participation in the freedom movement. They argued that such statements attempt to appropriate the legacy of the independence struggle while marginalizing diverse contributions. Farooq Abdullah’s response emphasised the collective effort and sacrifices of all communities, warning against narratives that could deepen communal divides. This sentiment was echoed by Sachin Pilot, who criticized the remark for diminishing the inclusive struggle that defined India’s fight for freedom.

Public sentiment and wider repercussions

The broader public and political reaction to Bhagwat’s statement reflects its polarizing nature. Leaders across party lines, including KC Venugopal and Mallikarjun Kharge, have condemned the remarks as an affront to the sacrifices of martyrs and freedom fighters. Organizations like the Congress and NSUI have staged protests, with demands ranging from an apology to a ban on the RSS. This widespread opposition underscores the importance of safeguarding India’s historical narrative from ideological distortions.

Broader concerns on historical narratives

Bhagwat’s statement aligns with a broader trend of historical revisionism, where specific ideological milestones are promoted as central to India’s identity. Such narratives risk side-lining the secular and pluralistic contributions of leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, Sardar Patel, and Jawaharlal Nehru. Jairam Ramesh noted that this trend undermines the Constitution and the values it represents. By celebrating the Ram Temple’s consecration as “true independence,” the RSS projects a narrow and exclusionary vision of Indian history.

Mohan Bhagwat’s remarks represent more than a historical misrepresentation; they pose a challenge to India’s pluralistic and democratic framework. The struggle for India’s independence was a collective effort transcending religious, regional, and ideological boundaries. Attempts to rewrite this narrative for political or ideological purposes must be actively challenged to preserve the integrity of India’s democratic and constitutional ideals. Moving forward, reaffirming the values of unity, secularism, and inclusivity is essential to maintaining the spirit of the freedom struggle and the Republic it helped establish.

Related:

Riddles of Ayodhya Ram Temple: Consecration of Bhagwan Ram’s idol, but which one?

As Ram Temple inaugurated in UP, reports arrive of communal incidents from five states

Only Hindutva can unify India, says Bhagwat

The post Bhagwat’s remarks spark national unity debate appeared first on SabrangIndia.

With the ascendance of a brute majoritarian politics, identity politics related divisive issues and the ideology of Hindu nationalism, many in the film World have been now producing films which promote a particular narrative, a divisive one, which is based on sectarian views of politics and history. The common theme among these is a tilting of truth and in most cases glorification of Hindu Nationalist icons. The clever undermining of truth and building up of ‘fiction as fact’ is the underlying theme of most of these films. One of these was heavily promoted by the likes of Prime Minister Modi and RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat, ‘Kashmir files’. Affluent BJP supporters bought the tickets of this film in bulk and distributed these in their areas to encourage people to watch this. The worthies who promoted these claimed that finally the truth of these events is being brought to fore.

Another one was Kerala Story, where the figures of those being converted to Islam and recruited for IS were exaggerated to the sky. Many other such fiction like films flopped at the box office like 72 Hoorain, which tried to present ‘Islamic Terrorism’, presenting the political problem as a religious one. This film suppressed any social understanding that similar allurements of Apsaras in Swarg and Fairies in Heaven are also there in the mythologies of other religions.

These films were mainly to promote Islamophobia. On another level, the film on Godse (2022) was an attempt to glorify Godse by putting together many falsehoods around false narratives that Gandhi did not try to save Bhagat Singh from hanging and he opposed the Congress resolution mourning Bhagat Singh’s death. And now comes the film ‘Swatantaraveer Savarkar’ by Randeep Hooda. This promotes fiction as truth, taking this self-deception to an even higher level. It claims that Bhagat Singh went to meet Savarkar and even told him that he wants to translate his book, ‘First War of Independence’ from Marathi to English!

What is the truth? Many revolutionaries read this book and appreciated it. The fact is the book was written in Marathi around 1908 or so and was translated into English a year later. Bhagat Singh was born in 1907 and as a matter of fact never met Savarkar in his all-to-brief life!

The film shows Savarkar stating that we shall win Independence by 1912 i.e. 35 years before we actually got Independence. The fact is that Savarkar was in the Andaman Jail from 1910 and had started writing mercy petitions. By 1912, he had written three of them. In these petitions he had sought apology from the British for his earlier actions and committed to serve the British loyally if he is released. And that’s what he did after his release by the British. Our freedom struggle picked up steam in 1920 when due to the Non Cooperation movement, most of the people started associating with the freedom struggle.

The film goes on to question why no Congressman was sent to Andamans and most of them were sent to Indian jails alone. This may not be factually true. After 1920 the anti British movement took the path of non violence led by Gandhi-INC. The sentences given to the satyagrahis were of different types like imprisonment in jails. Andaman or hanging (Like for Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and Rajguru) were for involvement in acts of violence. As non violence was the basic credo of the movement led by Gandhi they were neither sentenced to death nor sent to Andamans.

The film argues that the country got Independence not through non Violence but through violence. The major revolutionaries operating in India belonged to the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association. After Bhagat Singh and his comrades were killed or hanged there was no major violent movement. Savarkar’s Abhinav Bharat had abandoned anti British stance with Savarkar’s mercy petitions. Subhash Bose, who formed Azad Hind Fauz, was killed in 1945 and the soldiers of Azad Hind Fauz were imprisoned and kept in Red Fort as prisoners. It was the INC which formed a committee to defend these soldiers. In this Nehru had taken the lead to form the committee for release of these prisoners of war.

There are claims in the film that are fallacious: that it was Savarkar who advised Bose to form the army and to fight the British. This is totally in contrast to what are the real facts. Bose after leaving Congress had made up his mind to fight the British through armed might with the help of Germany and Japan, When Bose was fighting against British, Savarkar was urging Hindu Mahasabha to get the Hindus recruited to British army, to help British,

“Addressing the Mahasabha’s Calcutta session, Savarkar urged all universities, colleges and schools to ‘secure entry into military forces for youths in any and every way’. When Gandhi had launched his individual satyagraha the following year, Savarkar, at the Mahasabha session held in December 1940 in Madura, encouraged Hindu men to enlist in ‘various branches of British armed forces en masse’.”

About Savarkar, Subhash Chandra Bose wrote: “Savarkar seemed to be oblivious of the international situation and was only thinking how Hindus could secure military training by entering Britain’s army in India.” Bose concluded that “…nothing could be expected from either the Muslim League or the Hindu Mahasabha.”

Bose in an address to Indians via Azad Hind Radio said “I would request Mr. Jinnah, Mr. Savarkar & to all those who still think of a compromise with the British to realize once for all that in the world of tomorrow there will be no British Empire”

As far as associating Savarkar with Subhash Bose in the film, Chandra Kumar Bose, grand nephew of Netaji after seeing the trailer told Hooda, “Please refrain from linking Netaji with Savarkar. Netaji was an inclusive secular leader and patriot of patriots.”

The film is one more “cultural effort” aimed at distorting the truth to strengthen Hindu Nationalist politics, only with an eye on the forthcoming elections.

The post Films building up  a majoritarian narrative: Swatantraveer Savarkar appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“We have taken up a process for special remission of convicted persons who have completed 66 per cent of their jail term and maintained good conduct. This is being done following an instruction from the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) on the occasion of Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav,” Apurba Kumar Chakraborty, OSD to the department of prisons, told PTI.

Currently, there are 1,335 convicts in 14 jails in the state, which have a total capacity of 2,365. This means that the prisons are not overcrowded yet the state government went ahead with this move.

Tapash Roy, the secretary of the prisons under the Home (Jail) Department said during a Press Conference that 5 convicted prisoners are set to be released, reported India Today NE.

However, it is unclear whether there are any other conditions for releasing these prisoners or is it a blanket application on all prisoners irrespective of what they were convicted of, if they were serious offences, whether they would be treated any differently and whether they registered good behaviour.

As per The Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules 1998, under Rule 4, one of the conditions for being released on parole is good behavior.

However, what the Tripura government has decided is to release the prisoners for good and not just on parole which amounts to suspension of their sentence or their remission. Under section 432 of CrPC  Central and state governments have powers to remit and suspend the sentence of a convict and under section 433 of CrPC, the governments can commute the sentence as well which can be done suo moto.

Under the Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav scheme, Maharashtra released 189 prisoners and Tamil Nadu released 60 prisoners in January, on the occasion of Republic Day. In March 2022, the Central government had decided to give special remission to certain category of prisoners which did not include those involved in serious crimes but included those who have consistently maintained good conduct during their term in prison. As per the Central government’s categories, those eligible for this special remission included:

>Women convicts of 50 years of age and above who have completed 50 per cent of their total sentence period (without counting the period of general remission earned).

>Transgender convicts of 50 years of age and above who have completed 50 per cent of their total sentence period (without counting the period of general remission earned).

>Male convicts of 60 years of age and above who have completed 50 per cent of their total sentence period (without counting the period of general remission earned).

>Physically challenged/disabled convicts with 70 per cent disability and more (duly certified by a medical board) who have completed 50 per cent of their total sentence period (without counting the period of general remission earned).

>Terminally ill convicts (duly certified by a medical board)

>Convicted prisoners who have completed two-third (66 per cent) of their total sentence period (without counting the period of general remission earned).

>Poor or indigent prisoners who have completed their sentence but are still in jail due to non-payment of fine imposed on them by waiving off the fine.

>Persons who committed an offence at a young age i.e. between 18 and 21 years and with no other criminal involvement/case against them, who have completed 50 per cent of their sentence period (without counting the period of general remission earned).

Related:

Supreme Court directs all prisoners released on Covid-19 parole to surrender within 15 days

Law Ministry data shows steady increase in release of Undertrial prisoners over 4 years

Directions issued by the SC to prevent Delay in Release of Prisoners

The post Tripura decides to release 5 convicts who completed 66% of their sentence appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This 15000+ people settlement in Chharanagar of Ahmedabad, Gujarat is one of the most closely-knit communities. Known to have served the British royalty back then by theatrical and dance performances, they were taught to brew country liquor out of fruits, jaggery and different vegetables. As years went by, they perfected the art, and today every household in Chharanagar knows how to make liquor of different flavors. Having been a nomadic tribe for long before settling down, most of this liquor was for personal consumption by adults in the family. Even today, they speak proudly of the subtlety and talent in their alcohol-brewing process. Inspite of Gujarat being a dry state, the Chhara liquor is famous and consumed by people in Ahmedabad in various quantities.

The community prides itself in having a high gender ratio, a high female literacy rate, and increasing acceptance in terms of love and inter-caste marriages. People are progressive towards adopting new vocations to earn their livelihood. Even though Chharanagar has a lot of widows, the women in the settlements are actively trying to uproot alcohol addiction towards their spouses and other male family members. Beset as they are with lack of civic amenities, atrocities by authorities and discrimination by the society at large, Chharanagar showed signs that the community has not given up.

Perhaps the most powerful weapon in their arsenal is their expression of art. Adding a softer dimension to their struggle, artistic expression by Chharas has been heard and seen by the world over. Driven partly by the exorbitantly demanding streams like science and commerce, Chhara students have actively taken up arts and humanities disciplines and plowed back to their cause. ‘Science makes products, art makes humans’, says Atish Indrekar, a Chhara community activist with graduation in Dramatic Arts and diploma in Mass Communication. The Budhan Theater, setup by Ganesh N. Devy as a theater for community development, has made strides in the direction of advocating their cause – “Born Actors, not Born Criminals”. The theater is located at the heart of Chharanagar in their ‘library’, a sight worth admiring in a place which lacks basic civic facilities.  The theater derives its name from the first play on the police atrocities on Bhudan Sabar, an innocent ‘criminal’ tribal in West Bengal.

Today, they have 30+ plays some with over 300+ shows, and 3-4 award-winning, critically-acclaimed movies. Dakxin Bajrange, Budhan Theater’s creative head and a Ford Foundation fellow has directed a film called ‘Birth 1971’ – a movie showing the conditions of stigmatized, then criminal and today’s denotified tribes. Apart from garnering awards and recognitions, what makes the theater unique is its boldness in expression of social injustice issues. They believe in presenting hard facts and harsh realities while still being able to maintain a connect with the audience. The entire group, including actors, directors and playwrights are members of the Chhara community and produce shows in vernacular and common national languages.

Notably, they enjoy consistent support of NGOs like Bhasha, TISS etc. to spread awareness and drive their movement. Bhasha’s recent engagement with the Chhara community in curating an exhibition in Satya Art gallery at Ahmedabad was the only project in India to be selected to Communities Connecting Heritage project by Washington-based World Learning and sponsored by the U.S. Department of State. IIM Ahmedabad also has an elective course in collaboration with Budhan Theater to engage B-school students in participatory theater to develop social analysis and empathy skills.

At the core of all their problems sits a lack of leadership at the top, to lead from the front and uplift them from the lowest echelons of the society. 190+ tribes need to come together to move the legislation in their favor. States like Haryana and Gujarat have recognized Denotified and Nomadic Tribes (DNTs) and witnessed some success, but only a strong national unison can break the shackles of this social stigma from the core. Till then – a strong sense of communal unity, a resistance from youth and the strength of their expression of arts in the form of Budhan Theater will create awareness and develop empathy. Perhaps the legislation take its due course of time, but such deeply-rooted social stigma can only be dealt with a feeling of harmony and social acceptance and rejection of the second-class notion of Chharas.

As we celebrate the 73rd Independence Day next month with a feeling of pride in our hearts and heads held high, let’s also participate in what Chharas and other DNTs call their own Independence Day or Vimukt Divas  on 31st August – the day in 1952 when the horrific Criminal Tribes Act of 1871 was repealed by the then Indian Parliament. It is also hoped that with destigmatization of such communities, we could be able to achieve the Sampoorna Swaraj our forefathers and freedom fighters wished and died for.

The post Chharas of Gujarat : ‘Stealing’ the show appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image courtesy Forward Press

“Castes in India: Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development” was a paper read by BR Ambedkar at an anthropological seminar of Alexander Goldenweiser in New York on 9 May, 1916. In 1979, the Education Department of the Government of Maharashtra (Bombay) published this article in the collection, Ambedkar’s Writings and Speeches, Volume 1. The following are excerpts from the paper.

[11] This critical evaluation of the various characteristics of Caste leave no doubt that prohibition, or rather the absence of intermarriage—endogamy, to be concise—is the only one that can be called the essence of Caste when rightly understood. But some may deny this on abstract anthropological grounds, for there exist endogamous groups without giving rise to the problem of Caste. In a general way this may be true, as endogamous societies, culturally different, making their abode in localities more or less removed, and having little to do with each other are a physical reality. The Negroes and the Whites and the various tribal groups that go by name of American Indians in the United States may be cited as more or less appropriate illustrations in support of this view. But we must not confuse matters, for in India the situation is different. As pointed out before, the peoples of India form a homogeneous whole. The various races of India occupying definite territories have more or less fused into one another and do possess cultural unity, which is the only criterion of a homogeneous population. Given this homogeneity as a basis, Caste becomes a problem altogether new in character and wholly absent in the situation constituted by the mere propinquity of endogamous social or tribal groups. Caste in India means an artificial chopping off of the population into fixed and definite units, each one prevented from fusing into another through the custom of endogamy. Thus the conclusion is inevitable that Endogamy is the only characteristic that is peculiar to caste, and if we succeed in showing how endogamy is maintained, we shall practically have proved the genesis and also the mechanism of Caste.

[12] It may not be quite easy for you to anticipate why I regard endogamy as a key to the mystery of the Caste system. Not to strain your imagination too much, I will proceed to give you my reasons for it.

[13] It may not also be out of place to emphasize at this moment that no civilized society of today presents more survivals of primitive times than does the Indian society. Its religion is essentially primitive and its tribal code, in spite of the advance of time and civilization, operates in all its pristine vigour even today. One of these primitive survivals, to which I wish particularly to draw your attention, is the Custom of Exogamy. The prevalence of exogamy in the primitive worlds is a fact too well-known to need any explanation. With the growth of history, however, exogamy has lost its efficacy, and excepting the nearest blood-kins, there is usually no social bar restricting the field of marriage. But regarding the peoples of India the law of exogamy is a positive injunction even today. Indian society still savours of the clan system, even though there are no clans; and this can be easily seen from the law of matrimony which centres round the principle of exogamy, for it is not that Sapindas (blood-kins) cannot marry, but a marriage even between Sagotras (of the same class) is regarded as a sacrilege.

[14] Nothing is therefore more important for you to remember than the fact that endogamy is foreign to the people of India. The various Gotras of India are and have been exogamous: so are the other groups with totemic organization. It is no exaggeration to say that with the people of India exogamy is a creed and none dare infringe it, so much so that, in spite of the endogamy of the Castes within them, exogamy is strictly observed and that there are more rigorous penalties for violating exogamy than there are for violating endogamy. You will, therefore, readily see that with exogamy as the rule there could be no Caste, for exogamy means fusion. But we have castes; consequently in the final analysis creation of Castes, so far as India is concerned, means the superposition of endogamy on exogamy. However, in an originally exogamous population an easy working out of endogamy (which is equivalent to the creation of Caste) is a grave problem, and it is in the consideration of the means utilized for the preservation of endogamy against exogamy that we may hope to find the solution of our problem.

[15] Thus the superposition of endogamy on exogamy means the creation of caste. But this is not an easy affair. Let us take an imaginary group that desires to make itself into a Caste and analyse what means it will have to adopt to make itself endogamous. If a group desires to make itself endogamous a formal injunction against intermarriage with outside groups will be of no avail, especially if prior to the introduction of endogamy, exogamy had been the rule in all matrimonial relations. Again, there is a tendency in all groups lying in close contact with one another to assimilate and amalgamate, and thus consolidate into a homogeneous society. If this tendency is to be strongly counteracted in the interest of Caste formation, it is absolutely necessary to circumscribe a circle outside which people should not contract marriages.

[16] Nevertheless, this encircling to prevent marriages from without creates problems from within which are not very easy of solution. Roughly speaking, in a normal group the two sexes are more or less evenly distributed, and generally speaking there is an equality between those of the same age. The equality is, however, never quite realized in actual societies. At the same time to the group that is desirous of making itself into a caste the maintenance of equality between the sexes becomes the ultimate goal, for without it endogamy can no longer subsist. In other words, if endogamy is to be preserved conjugal rights from within have to be provided for, otherwise members of the group will be driven out of the circle to take care of themselves in any way they can. But in order that the conjugal rights be provided for from within, it is absolutely necessary to maintain a numerical equality between the marriageable units of the two sexes within the group desirous of making itself into a Caste. It is only through the maintenance of such an equality that the necessary endogamy of the group can be kept intact, and a very large disparity is sure to break it.

[17] The problem of Caste, then, ultimately resolves itself into one of repairing the disparity between the marriageable units of the two sexes within it. Left to nature, the much needed parity between the units can be realized only when a couple dies simultaneously. But this is a rare contingency. The husband may die before the wife and create a surplus woman, who must be disposed of, else through intermarriage she will violate the endogamy of the group. In like manner the husband may survive, his wife and be a surplus man, whom the group, while it may sympathise with him for the sad bereavement, has to dispose of, else he will marry outside the Caste and will break the endogamy. Thus both the surplus man and the surplus woman constitute a menace to the Caste if not taken care of, for not finding suitable partners inside their prescribed circle (and left to themselves they cannot find any, for if the matter be not regulated there can only be just enough pairs to go round) very likely they will transgress the boundary, marry outside and import offspring that is foreign to the Caste.

[18] Let us see what our imaginary group is likely to do with this surplus man and surplus woman. We will first take up the case of the surplus woman. She can be disposed of in two different ways so as to preserve the endogamy of the Caste.

[19] First: burn her on the funeral pyre of her deceased husband and get rid of her. This, however, is rather an impracticable way of solving the problem of sex disparity. In some cases it may work, in others it may not. Consequently every surplus woman cannot thus be disposed of, because it is an easy solution but a hard realization. And so the surplus woman (= widow), if not disposed of, remains in the group: but in her very existence lies a double danger. She may marry outside the Caste and violate endogamy, or she may marry within the Caste and through competition encroach upon the chances of marriage that must be reserved for the potential brides in the Caste. She is therefore a menace in any case, and something must be done to her if she cannot be burned along with her deceased husband.

[20] The second remedy is to enforce widowhood on her for the rest of her life. So far as the objective results are concerned, burning is a better solution than enforcing widowhood. Burning the widow eliminates all the three evils that a surplus woman is fraught with. Being dead and gone she creates no problem of remarriage either inside or outside the Caste. But compulsory widowhood is superior to burning because it is more practicable. Besides being comparatively humane it also guards against the evils of remarriage as does burning; but it fails to guard the morals of the group. No doubt under compulsory widowhood the woman remains, and just because she is deprived of her natural right of being a legitimate wife in future, the incentive to immoral conduct is increased. But this is by no means an insuperable difficulty. She can be degraded to a condition in which she is no longer a source of allurement.

[21] The problem of the surplus man (= widower) is much more important and much more difficult than that of the surplus woman in a group that desires to make itself into a Caste. From time immemorial man as compared with woman has had the upper hand. He is a dominant figure in every group and of the two sexes has greater prestige. With this traditional superiority of man over woman his wishes have always been consulted. Woman, on the other hand, has been an easy prey to all kinds of iniquitous injunctions, religious, social or economic. But man as a maker of injunctions is most often above them all. Such being the case, you cannot accord the same kind of treatment to a surplus man as you can to a surplus woman in a Caste.

[22] The project of burning him with his deceased wife is hazardous in two ways: first of all it cannot be done, simply because he is a man. Secondly, if done, a sturdy soul is lost to the Caste. There remain then only two solutions which can conveniently dispose of him. I say conveniently, because he is an asset to the group.

[23] Important as he is to the group, endogamy is still more important, and the solution must assure both these ends. Under these circumstances he may be forced or I should say induced, after the manner of the widow, to remain a widower for the rest of his life. This solution is not altogether difficult, for without any compulsion some are so disposed as to enjoy self-imposed celibacy, or even to take a further step of their own accord and renounce the world and its joys. But, given human nature as it is, this solution can hardly be expected to be realized. On the other hand, as is very likely to be the case, if the surplus man remains in the group as an active participator in group activities, he is a danger to the morals of the group. Looked at from a different point of view celibacy, though easy in cases where it succeeds, is not so advantageous even then to the material prospects of the Caste. If he observes genuine celibacy and renounces the world, he would not be a menace to the preservation of Caste endogamy or Caste morals as he undoubtedly would be if he remained a secular person. But as an ascetic celibate he is as good as burned, so far as the material wellbeing of his Caste is concerned. A Caste, in order that it may be large enough to afford a vigorous communal life, must be maintained at a certain numerical strength. But to hope for this and to proclaim celibacy is the same as trying to cure atrophy by bleeding.

[24] Imposing celibacy on the surplus man in the group, therefore, fails both theoretically and practically. It is in the interest of the Caste to keep him as a Grahastha (one who raises a family), to use a Sanskrit technical term. But the problem is to provide him with a wife from within the Caste. At the outset this is not possible, for the ruling ratio in a caste has to be one man to one woman and none can have two chances of marriage, for in a Caste thoroughly self-enclosed there are always just enough marriageable women to go round for the marriageable men.

Under these circumstances the surplus man can be provided with a wife only by recruiting a bride from the ranks of those not yet marriageable in order to tie him down to the group. This is certainly the best of the possible solutions in the case of the surplus man. By this, he is kept within the Caste. By this means numerical depletion through constant outflow is guarded against, and by this endogamy and morals are preserved.

[25] It will now be seen that the four means by which numerical disparity between the two sexes is conveniently maintained are: (1) burning the widow with her deceased husband; (2) compulsory widowhood—a milder form of burning; (3) imposing celibacy on the widower; and (4) wedding him to a girl not yet marriageable. Though, as I said above, burning the widow and imposing celibacy on the widower are of doubtful service to the group in its endeavour to preserve its endogamy, all of them operate as means. But means, as forces, when liberated or set in motion create an end. What then is the end that these means create? They create and perpetuate endogamy, while caste and endogamy, according to our analysis of the various definitions of caste, are one and the same thing. Thus the existence of these means is identical with caste and caste involves these means.

[26] This, in my opinion, is the general mechanism of a caste in a system of castes. Let us now turn from these high generalities to the castes in Hindu Society and inquire into their mechanism. I need hardly premise that there are a great many pitfalls in the path of those who try to unfold the past, and caste in India to be sure is a very ancient institution. This is especially true where there exist no authentic or written records or where the people, like the Hindus, are so constituted that to them writing history is a folly, for the world is an illusion. But institutions do live, though for a long time they may remain unrecorded and as often as not customs and morals are like fossils that tell their own history. If this is true, our task will be amply rewarded if we scrutinize the solution the Hindus arrived at to meet the problems of the surplus man and surplus woman.

[27] Complex though it be in its general working the Hindu Society, even to a superficial observer, presents three singular uxorial customs, namely:

(i) Sati or the burning of the widow on the funeral pyre of her deceased husband. 
(ii) Enforced widowhood by which a widow is not allowed to remarry. 
(iii) Girl marriage.
In addition, one also notes a great hankering after Sannyasa (renunciation) on the part of the widower, but this may in some cases be due purely to psychic disposition.

Courtesy: Indian Cultural Forum

The post The Mechanism of Caste appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
Today, India has turned into a grazing field for all kinds of religious bigots led by the Hindutva gang. Even the Prime Minister of the country, who took an oath to uphold the Constitution, is identifying himself as a Hindu nationalist, as if he is in office to serve the cause of Hindutva. The RSS/BJP rulers are openly declaring their commitment to turn India into a Hindu state, where the Brahminical codes of Manu, which reduce women and Dalits to sub-human status, would be the law of the land. For them, India is the Fatherland and holy land for Hindus only. It is to be noted that as per the Hindutva definition, only those can be considered as Hindus who have Aryan blood, believe in casteism, are of fair colour, and treat Sanskrit as a holy language. It is not just Muslims and Christians who are out of Hindu nation, even faiths such as Sikhism, Buddhism and Jainism can survive only as sects of Hinduism.

However, this was not the scenario 100 years ago, when the British rulers perpetrated one of the worst massacres in the modern history: the Jallianwala Bagh massacre. People of India shackled by the most powerful imperialist power of the world–Britain–presented a heroic, united resistance. This is not hearsay, but proven by official, mostly British documents. These amazing documents were part of the British archives, which became National Archives of India after Independence. These documents were made public to mark the 75^th anniversary of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, as part of an exhibition titled, ‘Archives and Jallianwala Bagh: A Saga of Independence’.

Most documents, concerning the most volatile period of the Indian freedom struggle, not only showed the British brazenly flouting democratic norms, indulging in barbarism while suppressing the mass discontent, but also brought to light hitherto hidden aspects of Indian people’s united heroic struggle. The documents exhibited were both saddening and amazing. The documents outline the ‘civilized’ British indulging in acts of unprecedented violence against Indians, and amazing way the people of India, collectively and individually, belonging to different faiths and castes, rose in revolt.

The saddest part has been that this treasure of visual and written narratives was put back in the dark rooms of the National Archives, never exhibited again. It has not been taken out even at the centenary commemoration that is currently underway. It seems that the rulers and managers do not want future generations to know about the barbarism of the colonial masters, as well as united great heroic resistance of the people of India.

The barbarism of the British rulers
Photographs in the exhibit showed heart-wrenching scenes of the barbarity by the British rulers when dealing with the unrest in Punjab during 1914 to 1919: Punjabis, especially, Sikhs, tied on wooden/metal frames, being flogged, or forced to crawl on their bellies on public roads, their naked bodies in full view of the public, filled all with shame and anger. Punjab had become a military camp. The rulers worked to crush the self-esteem of patriotic Indians by forcing Indians to salute every Englishman/woman, barred them from riding bicycles, and forcibly pulled moustaches and beards. There is no doubt that such repression produced revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh and his comrades.  

The records narrated the story of the newly married Rattan Devi, who had spent the night of April 13-14, 1919 by the side of her husband. He was dead, lying amidst the hundreds strewn all over the Bagh. The place was overflowing with blood, as she narrates in the chilling statement on display, and after removing her husband’s body to a drier place,

“I sat by his side… I found a bamboo stick which I kept in my hand to keep off dogs. I saw three men writhing in great pain and an injured boy, about 12 years old, entreated me not to leave the place, I told him that I would not go anywhere leaving the dead body of my husband. I asked him if he was feeling cold, if he wanted a wrapper I could spread it over him. He asked for water, but that could not be produced at that place…”

In this exhibition a stunning story from a Hindi daily, ‘Abhiuday’ (October 4, 1919) was included, which narrated an account (and photographs) of two friends, Abdul Karim, 18, and Ramchander, 17, who came together from Lahore to attend meeting at the Jallianwala Bagh against Rowlatt Act. Both were martyred here. It was later found that Karim had passed the matriculation examination for Punjab University (Lahore) in first place.  
 
Air bombardments
Particularly startling is the hitherto unknown fact that the British government had, during the disturbances in 1919, used Royal Air Force planes to bombard the interiors of Punjab. A top-secret document, made public for the first time, was a Task 14.4.1919. It reads thus:  
“Aero plane No. 4491 Type BO E-2.E. Squadron No. 31. Pilot captain Carbery. Hour at which flight started from Lahore: 14.20. Hour at which flight concluded: 16.45. [The details] 15.20: village two miles north west of Gujranwala (now in Pakistan)-dropped three bombs on party of natives 150 strong…50 rounds machine gun fired into village. 15.30 Village one mile south of above-party of 50 natives outside village. Two bombs dropped…25 rounds machine gun fired into village. About 200 natives in fields near a building. One bomb dropped, 30 rounds MG fired into party who took over in house. 15.40: Gujranwala-Bombs dropped on large crowd of natives in south of town. 100 rounds MG fired into parties of natives in the streets. At 15.50 when machine left for Lahore no natives could be seen on the streets…”

Another highlight of the exhibition was the hand-written original of Rabindra Nath Tagore’s letter to the viceroy renouncing his Knighthood to protest the repression in Punjab. He wrote:
“The time has come when badges of honors 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 degradation not fit for human beings.”

Another heartening document was the original facsimile of the resignation letter dated March 28, 1919 of MA Jinnah from the Imperial Legislative Assembly in protest against the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, and repression in Punjab. His letter openly blamed the British rulers for the atrocities and the passing of the Rowlatt Act. He wrote:
“A government that passes or sanctions such a law [Rowlatt Act] in times of peace forfeits its claim to be called a civilized government.”   
 
It is sad that Jinnah later joined the bandwagon of two-nation protagonists.
 
The level of anger the Rowlatt Act generated in every part of India could be gauged by the violent resistance. The Gujarat area was generally considered to be compliant. The displayed documents showed that in Gujarat within 2 days (11-12 April, 1919) protesting mobs in Ahmedabad and its vicinity burnt offices of the Collector, city judge, flagstaff, jail, the main telegraph centre, and 26 police stations.

Resistance literature banned 
On display were the copies of literature, poetry, prose and plays that were written and circulated against British barbarism, but banned. These treasures depicted the united and pervasive nature of the resistance. It must be noted that the exhibition must have displayed just a fraction of the banned literature available in the Archives. Some of the important banned books were: Bagh-e-Jallian, a lyrical play in Hindi authored by Ram Saroop Gupta, Jallianwala Bagh, a long poem in Gurmukhi penned by Firoziddin Sharf, Punjab kaa Hatyakand, a play in Urdu, and Jallianwala Bagh, a long Gujarati play. The last two were by anonymous authors in order to avoid identification by the repressive regime.    

Some of the representative lyrics read:  
जुल्म डायर ने किया था रंग जमाने के लिए
हिंद वालों को मुसीबत में फंसाने के लिए।
[zulm Dyer ne kiya thaa rang jamane ke liye/Hind walon ko museebat maen phansane ke liye.]
खून से पंजाब के डायर की लिखी डायरी
रुबरु रख दी मेरी तबियत जलाने के लिए।
[khoon se Punjab ke Dyer kee likhee diary/roo-baroo rakh dee mere tabiyat jalane ke liye.]
बाग़े जलियां में शहीदों की बने गर यादगार
जायेंगे अशिके-वतन आंसू बहाने के लिए।
[Bagh-e-Jallian maen shahidon kee baney gar yaadgaar/jayenge aashiq-e-watan aansoo bahane ke liye.]
हम उजड़ते हैं तो उजड़ें, वतन आबाद रहे,
मर मिटे हैं हम के अब वतन आजाद रहे।
वतन की खातिर जो अपनी जान दिया करते हैं,
मरते नहीं हैं वो हमेशा के लिए जिया करते हैं।
[hum ujadte haen tau ujdaen, watan aabaad rahe/murr mitey haen hum ke aab watan azad rahe.
Watan kee khatir jo apnee jaan diya karte haen/marte naheen haen who hamesha ke liye jiya karte haen.]
 
British rulers overlooked martyrs, Independent India too remains indifferent 
These documents make shocking revelations about the reprehensible attitude of the foreign rulers towards the victims of the massacre at Jallianwala Bagh. In June 1919, the Home Department issued a statement that described the British casualties, but failed to acknowledge the number of Indian deaths, making the bizarre argument that any number made public by the British government would not be acceptable to Indians.
 
However, when government repression in Punjab drew worldwide condemnation, the British government appointed a commission of enquiry for investigating violence in Punjab on October 14, 1919, headed by a jurist from Scotland, Lord William Hunter. This commission came to be known as Hunter Committee. It came to the conclusion that at Jallianwala Bagh, 381 Indians, including males, females and even a six-month-old baby were killed by  General Dyer’s forces. This count was highly disputable as the unidentified bodies (of people who were not from Punjab but were in Amritsar, as it was a famous business/religious centre) were disposed of.
 
Shockingly, even after Independence, nothing changed for the surviving members of the martyrs and the grievously injured. They remained ignored. In India, where people who were jailed during the Emergency (1975-77) for less than a month received Rs. 10,000, and jailed for under two months Rs. 20,000 as family pensions, the demands of the families of the martyrs that they should at least be entitled to pensions and railway concessions have not been accepted. Disgusted, the ‘Jallianwala Bagh Shaheed Parivar Samiti’ wrote a letter to the British Prime Minister, arguing that England should provide compensation. This not only shows the helplessness and hopelessness of the martyrs’ families, but also the shamelessness and spinelessness of the Indian rulers.
 
Unsung martyr: Udham Singh who avenged the Jallianwala Bagh massacre
This exhibition displayed a telegram that was sent on April 16, 1940. That was the date of Udham Singh’s trial in London. It read:
“We understand that during the trial the accused intends to pose as a martyr and indulge in heroics. We would be glad if steps are taken to secure that press in England do not report substantially and that Reuters only carry as brief and unsensational a summary as possible.”
This telegram from the Governor General in New Delhi to the Secretary of State for India clearly showed that the British, glorified as great believers in fair play and the rule of law, germane to democracy, were masters in manipulating the fourth estate.
For more than 47 years, this telegram remained a secret document in  British intelligence files, and was kept hidden by India’s government until 1994. There were other amazing documents displayed in 1994 that pieced together the complete story of Udham Singh that had thus far only been known in tidbits.

“I did it because… he deserved it. He… wanted to crush the spirit of my people, so I have crushed him. For full 21 years I have been trying to wreak vengeance. I am happy I have done the job. I am not scared of death. I am dying for my country.”
He continued,
“I do not care about sentence of death…I am dying for a purpose.. We are suffering from the British Empire…I am proud to die to free my native land and I hope that when I am gone…in my place will come thousands of my countrymen to drive you dirty dogs out; to free my country…you will be cleansed out of India. And your British imperialism will be smashed…I have nothing against the English people at all…I have great sympathy with the workers of England. I am against the imperialist government. DOWN WITH BRITISH IMPERIALISM!”

These words of Mohammad Singh Azad rang out through a London courtroom on March 13, 1940 where he was produced immediately after killing Michael O’Dyer, the Lt. Governor of Punjab, the architect of the Jallianwala massacre who order the crackdown. Mohammad Singh Azad was none other than Udham Singh. Born in a Dalit Sikh family and brought up in an orphanage, Udham Singh was present in the public meeting at Amritsar on the fateful, bloody Baisakhi in 1919.

Having fallen under a heap of dead bodies, Udham Singh had miraculously survived the carnage. But so deep was his hatred, that the 20-year old vowed not to rest until he had avenged the killing of hundreds of innocents. He achieved his target 21 years later, and ‘Mohammad Singh Azad’, the name he adopted, underscored the fact that the overthrow of the British rule was impossible without the unity of the Hindu, Muslim and Sikh populace of India. There is a reasonable apprehension that if Udham Singh returns to India with his adopted name today, he may well be lynched.     

It was 79 years ago (July 31, 1940) that Udham Singh died on the gallows in London’s Pentonville prison. Through the documents it was found that before reaching London, he had been to Mesopotamia, Kenya, Uganda, the USA and the USSR, all in quest of Indian revolutionaries and ammunitions. It was on reaching the English shores that he took the alias of Mohammad Singh Azad. He even attempted to organize fellow English laborers.
 
The list of martyrs only underlines the multi-religious and multi-caste character of the freedom struggle
The Hunter Committee’s list of martyrs makes it clear that the meeting at Jallianwala Bagh held to protest the Rowlatt Act, and the arrests of renowned Congress leaders Dr. Satyapal and Saifuddin Kitchlew (whose son Toufique Kitchlew, an author, died in penury) was attended by men, women, and youth of all religions and castes. According to the list, 381 people died in the firing of the British army under the command of Brigadier General Reginald Dyer. His invading force mainly consisted of the Nepali Gurkhas, the Baluch Regiment (manned by Punjabi Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs), the 54th Sikhs and the 59th Sind Rifles, making it clear that the British ruled India with the help of Indian stooges.  
 
Of the 381 martyrs, 222 were Hindus, 96 were Sikhs, and 63 were Muslims. Notably, attendees at the gathering, including those who were martyred comprised not just businessmen, lawyers, journalists, literary persons, government employees, and intellectuals but also large numbers of ironsmiths, weavers, barbers, helpers, daily-wage earners, carpet knitters, masons, cobblers and safai karamcharis. Many women were also present. This reality once again underlined the fact that before the appearance of the protagonists of Hindu and Muslim separatism, the Indian freedom struggle was a united movement overriding religious and caste divisions. It was a true anti-colonial movement for an inclusive India. 
 
It is sad that such narratives of a joint struggle and joint martyrdom of the Indian people lie hidden in  the National Archives. If only these were made accessible to the younger generation, they might quell many of the communal, casteist and sectarian agendas dominant in the country.
 
 
 

The post A Century Down, Key Archival Docs remain buried: Jallianwala Bagh appeared first on SabrangIndia.

हाल ही में प्रकाशित हुए अपने एक लेख में इतिहासकार इरफान हबीब ने कहा था कि आजादी की लड़ाई में आरएसएस की कोई भूमिका नहीं रही। इस लेख के बाद लखनऊ के एक व्यक्ति ने अलीगढ़ की कोर्ट में एक याचिका लगाई है। याची का कहना है कि मैं संघ का सदस्य हूं। इरफान हबीब के इस लेख को पढ़कर मुझे पीड़ा हुई है। मुझे मानसिक आघात पहुंचा है। इस बारे में जब इरफान हबीब से बात की गई तो उनका कहना था कि इस देश में सबको बोलने का हक है।

मैंने जो कहा है वो कागजों में दर्ज है। मेरे पास मेरे बयान से संबंधित सबूत हैं और मैं उस पर कायम हूं। अगर किसी को ये लगता है कि मेरा बयान गलत है तो उसे साबित करे। ऐसे लोग सबूत पेश करें कि इस तारीख में इस जगह संघ से जुड़े फलां स्वयंसेवक ने लड़ाई लड़ी थी और इस लडाई में उन पर कार्रवाई हुई थी या फिर वो शहीद हुए थे।

हबीब ने न्यूज 18 इंडिया डॉटकॉम से बातचीत में कहा कि कई बार ये मामला कोर्ट में गया है। आज भी किसी शख्स ने कोर्ट में अर्जी दाखिल की है। जिसको शिकायत है वो कोर्ट में सबूत देकर मेरी बात को खारिज कर सकता है। वर्ना तो जब कोर्ट मांगेगा तो मैं अपने बयान से संबंधित सबूत पेश कर दूंगा। बाकी में इस बारे में ज्यादा कुछ नहीं कहना चाहूंगा। मैं जानता हूं कि ये पब्लिसिटी पाने के लिए की गई ओछी हरकत है।

Courtesy: National Dastak
 

The post इतिहासकार इरफान हबीब ने RSS से पूछा आजादी में योगदान, करा दी गई FIR appeared first on SabrangIndia.

प्रिय रवीश कुमार जी,

सीजन खुली चिट्ठियों का है। आपने हाल ही में पत्रकार से मंत्री बने एम.जे.अकबर को चिट्ठी लिखी। बरखा दत्त ने पूर्व मानव संसाधन मंत्री स्मृति ईरानी को चिट्ठी लिखी। चूंकि आप अब ट्रॉलिंग के चलते सोशल मीडिया में नहीं हैं इसलिए खुली चिट्ठी ही मेरे लिए आप तक पहुंचने अकेला जरिया था।

रवीश की रिपोर्ट का मैं शुरू से ही दर्शक रहा हूं। आपकी पत्रकारिता के मानदंडों का मैं प्रशंसक हूं। गुजरात मॉडल की सही तस्वीर दिखाने और उससे भी ज्यादा जाति, कोटा जैसे संवेदनशील लेकिन अहम सामाजिक मुद्दों को अपनी पत्रकारिता का विषय बनाने की वजह से मैं आपका मुरीद बन चुका हूं। 

 5 जुलाई के मोदी के कैबिनेट विस्तार पर दिखाए गए अपने कार्यक्रम में आपने ब्राह्मण वर्चस्व का मुद्दा उठा कर मर्म पर चोट की। कोई भी पत्रकार या चैनल कैबिनेट विस्तार का इस अंदाज में चीर-फाड़ का साहस नहीं करता। 

आपने सही कहा कि मोदी कैबिनेट में ज्यादातर महत्वपूर्ण मंत्री ब्राह्मण हैं। विस्तार के बाद रामदास अठावले जैसे दलित मंत्री को शामिल किया गया। आपने सही कहा कि दलित मंत्रियों को आखिर सामाजिक न्याय मंत्रालय ही क्यों दिया जाता है। उन्हें वित्त या वाणिज्य जैसे अहम मंत्रालय क्यों नहीं मिलते। सुशील कुमार शिंदे और रामविलास पासवान जैसे मंत्रियों को छोड़ कर किसी और दूसरे दलित मंत्री को शायद ही कभी कोई बड़ा मंत्रालय दिया गया है। लेकिन विडंबना देखिये कि इस मुद्दे पर पैनल डिस्कशन में आपने जिन लोगों को बुलाया था वे भी ब्राह्मण ही थे। अभय कुमार दुबे, विद्या सुब्रमण्यम, अखिलेश शर्मा, सुनीता एरन- सभी ब्राह्ण। मुझे नहीं लगता कि आपने इस पर गौर किया होगा। जरा सोचिए कि टीवी पर कैबिनेट में डाइवर्सिटी की चर्चा एक ऐसा पैनल कर रहा है, जिसमें खुद डाइवर्सिटी नहीं है। क्या महिला मुद्दों पर किसी ऐसे पैनल में चर्चा हो सकती है, जिसमें लगभग सभी पुरुष हों।

कुछ साल पहले तक आपके पास प्रोफेसर विवेक कुमार या चंद्रभान प्रसाद जैसे मुखर वक्ता होते थे। कांग्रेस के दलित नेता पीएल पुनिया या भाजपा के संजय पासवान जैसे नेता दिख जाते थे, जिन्हें मैं दलितों के प्रतिनिधि के तौर पर नहीं देखता। आप मानेंगे कि पैनल में बुलाए जाने वाले ऐसे नेता चर्चा के दौरान अपने समुदाय के बजाय अपनी पार्टियों की नुमाइंदगी करते दिखते हैं।

मैं किसी नाम के खिलाफ नहीं हूं लेकिन इस पैनल डिस्कशन में आप क्या ऐसे दलित कमेंटेटर को नहीं बुला सकते थे, जो गैर जो एक साथ भाजपा और कांग्रेस दोनों पर टिप्पणी कर सकता था।  क्या एनडीटीवी में 20 साल की नौकरी के बावजूद आप ऐसे गैर राजनीतिक दलित कमेंटेटर को नहीं ढूंढ़ पाए जो इस डिबेट का हिस्सा हो सकता था। एनडीटीवी के एडोटरियल बोर्ड की बात छोड़ दीजिये। मोदी कैबिनेट में डाइवर्सिटी की बात करते हुए क्या आपने अपने डिस्क शन पैनल को भी डाइवर्सिफाई करने के बारे में सोचा? 

द हिंदू ने 2012 में एक रिपोर्ट छापी थी कि किस तरह मीडिया समानता और भाईचारे की संविधान की दी गई गारंटी की अनदेखी करते हुए दलितों की भर्तियां करने में नाकाम रहा है। इस रिपोर्ट में वाशिंगटन पोस्ट की एक स्टडी का हवाला दिया गया था, जिसे 2000 में इसके संवाददाता केनेथ जे कूपर ने किया था। कूपर भारत में किसी दलित संवाददाता की तलाश में थे लेकिन ऐसा कोई पत्रकार नहीं मिला। इसके बाद बीएन उनियाल ने कूपर की इस तलाश के बारे में द पायनियर में लिखा। उन्होंने अपने बारे में भी लिखा – अपनी 30 साल की पत्रकारिता दौरान मैं भी किसी साथी दलित पत्रकार की तलाश नहीं कर सका। एक भी नहीं। कूपर-उनियाल की तलाश में देश के मीडिया में फैसले लेने वाले 300 से ज्यादा पत्रकारों में से कोई भी दलित या आदिवासी नहीं निकला।

मैं इस समय अमेरिका में रह रहा हूं। यहां टीवी पर भारत से बिल्कुल अलग तस्वीर दिखती है। मैं यहां टीवी पर जातीय, नस्ल और त्वचा के रंग की पर्याप्त विविधता देखता हूं। मुझे हर दिन सीएनएन के प्राइम टाइम पर अफ्रीकी अमेरिकी डॉन लिमोन दिखते हैं। यहां तक कि दक्षिणपंथी फॉक्स न्यूज के पैनल पर भी अक्सर अफ्रीकी अमेरिकी विशेषज्ञों का समूह दिख जाता है। कॉमेडी सेंट्रल चैनल के डेली शो के होस्ट अफ्रीकी-अमेरिकी ट्रेवर नोह हैं, जिन्होंने मशहूर होस्ट जॉन स्टीवर्ट की जगह ली है।
अमेरिका में यह कैसे संभव हुआ? द हिंदू की ही रिपोर्ट बताती है कि 1978 में अमेरिकन सोसाइटी ऑफ न्यूज एडीटर्स ने पाया कि अमेरिकी न्यूज रूम में सिर्फ चार फीसदी पत्रकार ही ब्लैक, लातिनी, नेटिव अमेरिकन या एशियाई हैं। अमेरिकन सोसाइटी ऑफ न्यूज एडीटर्स ने सिलसिलेवार ढंग से इस तादाद को बढ़ाने का फैसला किया। सोसाइटी ने लक्ष्य रखा कि 2000 तक न्यूज रूम में ऐसे पत्रकारों की तादाद 30 फीसदी तक पहुंचा दी जाएगी। हालांकि 30 फीसदी तक का लक्ष्य तो पूरा नहीं हुआ है। लेकिन अब अमेरिकी न्यूज रूम में यह तादाद 20 फीसदी तक पहुंच चुकी है।

अब इसकी तुलना भारत में न्यूज ब्रॉडकास्टर एसोसिएशन  यानी एनबीए से कीजिये। खबरों में यह तभी दिखता जब इसका कोई सदस्य या संगठन किसी छोटी-मोटी राजनीतिक पार्टी के निशाने पर होता है। ऐसे में एनबीए से क्या उम्मीद की जा सकती है? इसके अलावा मोदी सरकार जिस रफ्तार से अहम सरकारी निकायों पर ब्राह्मणों को बिठाती जा रही है, उसे देखते हुए भी यह उम्मीद बेमानी है कि सूचना और प्रसारण मंत्रालय भारतीय मीडिया में डाइवर्सिटी लाने की कोशिश करेगा। 
ऐेसे में सिर्फ व्यक्तिगत प्रयासों से ही उम्मीद बंधती है। यह जिम्मा अब मीडिया में आप जैसे फैसले लेने वालों लोगों का है। आपलोग इस हालात में सुधार का बीड़ा उठाएं। क्या एनडीटीवी इस दिशा में पहल करेगा। क्या वह अगली बार किसी पैनल डिस्कशन में कुछ समझदार दलित चेहरों को शामिल करेगा।  

आखिर, एनडीटीवी इंडिया या एनडीटीवी में कितने दलित रिपोर्टर हैं? आपको यह सवाल परेशान कर सकता है। दूरदर्शन के बाद सबसे पुराना मीडिया हाउस होने के नाते क्या एनडीटीवी टॉप मास-कम्यूनिकेशन संस्थानों के एससी, एसटी ग्रेजुएट्स को स्पांसर कर सकता है? क्या वहां से पढ़ कर निकलने वाले ग्रेजुएट्स को वह अपने यहां छह महीने की ट्रेनिंग देकर उन्हें रिपोर्टर के तौर पर फील्ड में भेज सकता है। यह एक जबरदस्त आइडिया हो सकता है और इसे दूसरे मीडिया घरानों को भी बताया जा सकता है। दलित इस देश की आबादी का चौथाई हिस्सा हैं। अगर आपकी सेल्स टीम कारोबारी नजरिये से भी देखना चाहे तो, टीआरपी के लिहाज से भी यह एक बड़ा दर्शक वर्ग साबित हो सकता है।

 सूचना और प्रसारण मंत्रालय को यह आइडिया भेजा जाना चाहिए। लेकिन जैसा कि मैंने पहले ही कहा कि मुझे भारत सरकार से काफी कम उम्मीद है। इसलिए आप जैसे संवेदनशील पत्रकार को यह चिट्ठी लिख रहा हूं। मुझे लगता है कि आप सभी सामाजिक समूहों की चिंता करते हैं और हाशिये पर रहे रहे लोगों के प्रति संवेदनशील भी हैं। जिस तरह से अपने एक प्रोग्राम में आपने हैदराबाद के पीएचडी स्टूडेंट का सुसाइड नोट पढ़ा था वह आपकी विश्वसनीयता बयां करने के लिए काफी है। मुझे उम्मीद है कि आप मुझे निराश नहीं करेंगे। अगर भारत का इलेक्ट्रॉनिक और प्रिंट मीडिया ब्राह्मण-बनियों का अड्डा बना रहेगा, वहां निचली जातियों का प्रवेश नहीं होगा तो मुझे महाराष्ट्र के मशहूर दलित कवि वहारू  सोनवने की कविता के जरिये कड़वे सच की ओर ध्यान दिलाना होगा। इस कविता में उस दलित का दर्द है, जो अपना ही दर्द किसी सवर्ण से सुन रहा है। वह दर्शकों के बीच बैठने को विवश है। कोई सवर्ण पुरूष उसी का दर्द उसे मंच से सुना रहा है। उसी का दर्द, लेकिन इसे बयां करने का भी अवसर भी उसके पास नहीं।
 
स्टेज
न हम स्टेज तक पहुंच सके
न हमें बुलाया गया
हाथ दिखाकर
हमारी जगह बता दी गई
हम वहीं बैठे
वहीं पर हमें बधाई मिल गई
और वे स्टेज पर खड़े हो गए
और हमारा दर्द बयां करते रहे
हमारे दुख हमारे ही रहे
उनके कभी नहीं हो सके
लेकिन जैसे ही हमने शक जाहिर किया
उनके कान खड़े हो गए
वे चौंके
फिर गहरी सांस ली
फिर हमारे कान उमेठे
और कहा चुप रहो
माफी मांगो
नहीं तो……..
वहारू सोनवने

यह अंगे्रजी कविता का हिंदी अनुवाद है। मूल मराठी से इसे अंग्रेजी में भरत पाटनकर, गेल ओमवेट और सुहास परांजपे ने अनुवाद किया है।

और हां, चलते-चलते आपको एक बार फिर बधाई देता चलूं। ऊना में गोरक्षकों की ओर से दिन-दहाड़े दलितों को कपड़े उतार कर बर्बर तरीके से पीटने और रस्सी से बांध कर घसीटने की घटना पर आपकी कवरेज शानदार रही।

आपका ही
रविकिरण शिंदे

यह लेख मूल रूप से द हूट (The Hoot)  में प्रकाशित हुआ था।
(शिंदे अमेरिका में रहते हैं और सामाजिक-राजनीतिक विषयों पर स्वतंत्र लेखन करते हैं। )
 

The post एनडीटीवी के पत्रकार रवीश कुमार के नाम खुली चिट्ठी – आपके न्यूज रूम में डाइवर्सिटी क्यों नहीं ? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 

Dear Ravish Kumarji,

Namaskar. Apologies for writing this in English and not Hindi. This is a season of open letters. Recently, you wrote an open letter to journalist-turned-minister M J Akbar and then your colleague in NDTV, Barkha Dutt, wrote one to former Human Resources Minister, SmritI Irani. Now, before you think this is going to be a defence of them, let me tell you I'm neither writing about them and nor do I belong to the abusive clan known as online trolls. Since you are not on social media anymore, a decision which I did not like, an open letter was the only way to reach you. I'm clearing this at the outset so that you feel comfortable reading the entire letter without having even the slightest anticipation that the platitudes and  choice expletives that made you abandon social media might be coming your way again.

The recent cabinet expansion is why I am writing this. I have been following you since Ravish ki Report and always considered your journalism ethics in high esteem. Your true depiction of the Gujarat model, and more importantly your daring decision to include delicate but important social issues like caste and quotas made me your ardent admirer.

In your prime time coverage of the 5th July cabinet expansion, you rightly pointed to the disproportional dominance of Brahmins in the Narendra Modi cabinet, ie Nitin Gadkari, Arun Jaitley, Prakash Javadekar, Sushma Swaraj, Ananth Kumar, J. P. Nadda,  Manohar Parrikar, etc. No other channel or anchor would have dared to do this clinical dissection. 
 
 
 
Reacting to Ramdas Athawale being made Minister of State, you raised an important question about why dalit MPs almost always get the Social Justice Ministry. Barring Ram Vilas Paswan and Sushil Kumar Shinde, why have dalits been given social justice time and again and not important ministries such as finance or commerce? That was your question and it was an important question. I am happy that you touched upon this political enigma. 

The great paradox, however, was that while you were discussing this enigma, you had Abhay Dubey,  Vidya Subramaniam, Akhilesh Sharma and Sunita Aron on your panel. In short, a majority of Brahmins. I am not sure you realized the irony.  Just think about it – debating the lack of diversity in the cabinet in a television studio without diversity. Would you discuss women’s issues with an overwhelming male panel, headed by a man?

Until few years ago, you used to have eloquent dalit representation in the form of Professor Vivek Kumar or Chandra Bhan Prasad but these days, apart from the usual politicians – P. L. Punia of the Congress or Sanjay Paswan of the BJP, I do not see members of deprived sections represented.   You will agree that when dalit politicians are invited to debates, they simply represent their parties rather their own  communities and the discussion eventually turns into the usual political ping-pong.

Just as you have Abhay Dubey, why not also invite dalit commentators who are apolitical and can yet comment on politics while keeping an equi-distance from both the Congress and the BJP? I have nothing against the names I have mentioned but in your distinguished service of over 20 years with NDTV, didn't you find enough apolitical dalit commentators who could participate in your debate? Forget about diversifying the Editorial Board of NDTV – for which you criticized the Modi Cabinet – but have you ever thought of diversifying at least your discussion panel?

The Hindu reported in 2012 that the media's failure  to recruit dalits was a betrayal of the constitutional guarantees of equality and fraternity. The articlequoted a Washington Post study by its correspondent Kenneth J. Cooper  in 2000. Cooper tried to find a dalit correspondent in India but couldn’t. B. N. Uniyal of the Pioneer published Cooper’s search in the newspaper and wrote himself that "in all the 30 years I had worked as a journalist I had never met a fellow journalist who was a dalit, no, not one”. The Cooper-Uniyal inquiry found not a single SC or ST among more than 300 media decision-makers in the country.  

I live in the US currently and I see a completely different picture on TV here.  I see many different faces of colour, race and ethnicity. I can see a Don Lemon, an African American on CNN prime time every day.  Even on the right wing Fox news, there are often African Americans on panels. The host of the Daily Show on the Comedy Central Channel is African American Trevor Noah who succeeded the famous Jon Stewart.  

This is because, as the Hindu report says, in 1978 the American Society of New Editors (ASNE) found that only 4 per cent of US newsrooms comprised people of colour – Blacks, Latinos, Native Americans and Asians. ANSE systematically aimed to increase the diversity in the newsroom to 30 per cent by 2000. The target of 30 per cent was missed but it soared to 20 per cent.

Compare that to the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) in India. The only time we see them in the news is when they feel that one of them or their office is being attacked by some fringe political party. I have very little hope of the NBA and the rate at which the Modi government is appointing Brahmins to head important government bodies, I have little h­­­­ope of the Information & Broadcasting Ministry that it will try to diversify the Indian media.

Considering this situation, it is left to individual decision makers like you to make amends. Let's start with small things.  Can NDTV India proactively look out and invite sane dalit voices onto its panels?

Going back to your debate where you aptly asked why dalits are not made finance minister, did you ever realize that they are not only missing from important ministries but from newsrooms too?

Also, how many dalit reporters does NDTV India or NDTV have? The answer will be uncomfortable for you. Can NDTV, the oldest media house after Doordarshan, sponsor budding SC or ST journalists to graduate from top-notch mass communication institutes, give them intensive six months training after they have graduated and send them out into the field as reporters? This would be a wonderful idea and send a strong message to other media houses. Dalits form a quarter of India’s population and are TRP material too – if your sales team wants to view it from that angle.

This is a suggestion that should really go to the I&B Ministry but, as I said earlier, I have little hope of this government. That is why I am addressing this letter to a sensible journalist like you who, I think, cares for all social groups and is sensitive towards the marginalised. The episode in which you read Hyderabad PhD student Rohit Vemula's suicide letter is a perfect example of this. That is why I have chosen you. I’m sure you will not disappoint me.

If the electronic and print media continue to remain a Brahmin-Bania dominated den without any participation from the lower castes, I must quote from a famous poem by Waharu Sonawane, a dalit poet from Maharashtra, below. Sonawane explains  how they (the upper castes) tell his sorrow and his story from the 'Stage' while he – the victim – remains seated in the crowd, listening to his own story from their mouth while his story remains his own.

Stage

We didn’t go to the stage,
nor were we called.

With a wave of the hand
we were shown our place.

There we sat
and were congratulated,
and “they”, standing on the stage,
kept on telling us of our sorrows.
Our sorrows remained ours,
they never became theirs. 

When we whispered out doubts
they perked their ears to listen,
and sighing,
tweaking our ears,
told us to shut up,
apologize; or else…

(By Waharu Sonavane; translated by Bharat Patankar, Gail Omvedt, and Suhas Paranjape)

By the way, your coverage of Gujarat’s Una where four Dalits where stripped, tied to a vehicle and mercilessly beaten up by members of the Gau Rakshak Dal in broad daylight, was good.

Yours truly,
Ravikiran Shinde
 
This article originally appeared on The Hoot

Ravikiran Shinde is a freelance writer on socio-political subjects currently based in the US. Twitter: @scribe_it
 

The post Please increase the Diversity in your Newsroom! An open letter to NDTV India’s Ravish Kumar appeared first on SabrangIndia.