Nehru campaigned against communalism during first general elections

Modi targeting Muslim community of our country in his campaign speeches have no parallel in the electoral history of independent India. Those deplorable articulations of Modi reminds one of the warnings of the first Prime Minister of India Jawaharlal Nehru, who just before the conduct of the first general elections, had flagged that the appeal of parties by employing communal rhetoric for votes would put unity and integrity of the people and country into peril.

“This activity,” he stated,  “seldom concerns itself with any positive proposals and  asserted that “It was  largely a denunciation of Government and more especially of what is called the ‘appeasement’ policy of Government towards Muslims.” Nehru noted with sadness that “this kind of thing, adorned with an abundance of vulgar abuse, sometimes goes down with the crowd.”

Those prescient observations of Nehru uttered a few months before the first general elections are now playing out and the vulgarity associated with the communal phrases and idioms being employed by Modi and many other leaders of the BJP while campaigning during the 18^th general elections make the country mindful of the dangers of such an approach  to our unity.

Nehru while taking note of the dangers of this vulgar and foolish approach and the inherent poison of communalism, expressed satisfaction that  people he  addressed with full  facts responded by rejecting that toxicity.  For instance in his election speech delivered in Ludhiana on September 30, 1951 he addressed a  gathering of about one lakh people and gave a call for an”all-out war” on communalism.

Nehru’s warning on Hindu State

Nehru in the aforementioned letter observed  that “Behind these communal bodies are the forces of every kind of social reaction”. He proceeded to add that “Some of the old ruling princes, deprived of their powers but having enough money, the jagirdars, the big zamindars, and some of the big capitalists, support these communal bodies and talk loudly of a Hindu State or a Sikh State and of ancient Hindu culture”.

“Behind this garb of ancient culture,” Nehru sharply remarked, “they hide the narrowest acquisitiveness and reaction”.

He stated, “Essentially, these communal bodies are fascist in ideology and technique. They indulge in violence and disturbance and try to terrorize people or appeal to their lowest instincts. This has seemed to me, therefore, the major evil today and I have consequently laid great stress upon it.”

Nehru’s observation in 1951 that “the big zamindars, and some of the big capitalists, support these communal bodies and talk loudly of a Hindu State or a Sikh State and of ancient Hindu culture” bear special significance in the context of the huge corporates and crony capitalists supporting and funding BJP, and Prime Minister Modi  relentlessly using highly inflammable communal narratives with an intention to polarise the electorates.

Warning on casteism  

In another letter to chief ministers on November 1, 1951 Nehru while stating that several aspects of  electioneering was most depressing as he wondered sometimes “if this particular form of democracy cannot be improved upon”. With anguish he noted that electioneering brought about  the “undesirable features in a man’s nature, his desire for power and position, his acquisitiveness and wish for self-advancement even at the cost of others, his losing all perspective of the larger issues and judging everything by some petty and personal electoral victory”. He observed with pain that caste groups were likely to play a very negative role in the elections. Noting that the Congress party took into account those worrisome developments and, therefore, in one of its sessions  passed a special resolution about anti-social tendencies and expressed the resolve of the party to  stoutly face the problem without compromising with them.

Communalism most dangerous development

Nehru, however, observed in the same letter that the most dangerous development of that time was that of communalism and separatism. He referred to the remark of Syama Prasad Mookerjee who dismissed the existence of communalism in India except the Congress policy of Muslim appeasement and described him as someone functioned in communal organisations and played  an exceedingly narrow-minded and communal role. He charged that people like Syama Prasad  saw communalism in some other group, and not their own.

Communalism flourished in the name of nationalism

Nehru observed that the partition and its consequences largely  pushed out Muslim communalism to Pakistan, where it flourished exceedingly and  resulted in encouraging Hindu and Sikh communalism in India and many other separatist tendencies. “These flourished,” he remarked,  “in the name of nationalism and culture” and   proceeded to state that those who demanded strong action including war against Pakistan, criticised his government’s  policy as one of appeasement of Pakistan,  had little role in the struggle for India’s freedom and ostensibly claimed that they were true champions of nationalism. It is quite striking that he was saying so during election campaign.

Defeat of  communalism and dealing with economic problems

Nehru also flagged Syama Prasad’s statements that communalism and separatism were not the real problems of India as much as  poverty and unemployment were. While agreeing with the point that the primary problem of India was economic in nature and everything else was secondary, Nehru stressed that to  tackle that problem effectively, there should be some unity of conception and effort.

Stating that persistence of  separatism and sectarianism would make it difficult to tackle the primary economic  problem, he wrote, “Therefore, it is of primary importance to scotch and try to put an end to these communal and separatist tendencies in order to go ahead with the primary problem of India’s economic ills”.

“But if we allow the communal spirit to grow,” he warned “…. inevitably social reaction will also grow and prevent economic progress.”

“I would like to repeat…,” he emphatically noted, “it is better to lose elections than to give up something which has been the basis of our national movement and that is the foundation of all progress in India.”

Those words of the first prime minister of India, uttered during the first general elections,  are of seminal importance when Prime Minister Modi is negating the idea of India by his visceral communal articulations and imperilling the very foundation of our country just for winning election and getting access to power.

S N Sahu served as Officer on Special Duty to President of India K R Narayanan

Courtesy: The Wire

The post What Nehru Flagged as ‘Most Dangerous’ Modi Now Invokes for Votes appeared first on SabrangIndia.

While paying tribute to Nehru and recalling his rich legacy to build a new India from the ravages of centuries of colonial rule, and lay its foundation, among others, on the strength of science, technology, scientific temper and secularism, it is of crucial significance to reflect his ideas on elections, which he articulated a few days before the conduct of the first general elections in 1951 and during the conduct of its different phases.

It is illuminating to note that those articulations of Nehru on elections were so prescient that those are immensely relevant for our country today, when the conduct of 18th general elections are in full swing.

Nehru’s Warning on Coercive State Apparatus to Benefit a Party

In a letter to the Chief Minsters on June 5, 1951, five months before the commencement of the 1st general elections in November that year, Nehru wrote that he was accused by several opposition parties that he was instrumental in passing several legislations for the purpose of creating a coercive State apparatus with a view to winning the elections. He described the conduct of the 1st general elections as “a colossal affair taxing our administrative capacity to the utmost.”  “They will,” he remarked, “tax also our forbearance and will be a test for all of us”.

He proceeded to add that in the shadow of those elections, there were heated debates in Parliament and in the press, and in several quarters the legislation passed by the provisional Parliament was interpreted as a measure connected with those elections. Possibly, Nehru was referring to the Representation of People’s Act of 1951 and described the twisted interpretation given to it as “….a completely wrong inference.”

“Indeed,”, he sharply stated, “there could be no greater folly for a government, such as we are, than to use the repressive apparatus of the State to benefit any party”. “That itself,” he sensitively observed, “would rouse antagonism and lose support for that party.”  

Nehru’s utterances that “Indeed there could be no greater folly for a Government, such as we are, than to use the repressive apparatus of the State to benefit any party” resonate when people of India and Opposition parties are confronting a highly coercive State headed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who has employed several government agencies against Opposition parties and leaders, arrested leaders and even the Chief Minister of Delhi Arvind Kejriwal, former Chief Minister of Jharkhand Hemant Soren before and during elections.

Even the bank accounts of the Congress party have been frozen by the income tax authorities in a bid to financially paralyse the party from conducting its election campaign. So, today, the State apparatus is being used to benefit a particular party.

The contents of the aforementioned letter of Nehru need to be recalled while paying tribute to him on his death anniversary and remind the nation that how, with a farsighted vison, he wrote therein that bullying tactics of the State for winning elections for the party in power would generate antagonism and diminish people’s support for it. What Nehru wrote before the conduct of general elections is being replayed now when the election process is in full swing across the country.

Warning on Communal Forces

In that letter, Nehru also wrote that dangerous attempts were being made to cause trouble during the elections by, what he called “some ill-disposed persons” and he very prophetically stated, “Mostly it is expected from communal groups”. He, therefore, cautioned that the nation should be prepared to meet that anti-social challenge, which he candidly said, represented “fascist forces who never participated in freedom struggle.”

And 60 years after Nehru’s sad demise and during the election campaign, none other than Prime Minister Modi, as a star campaigner of the ruling Bharatiya Janata party (BJP) is engaged in stoking communal passions and targeting Muslims by spewing poison against them.

The Election Commission of India has written to the BJP president, J P Nadda, that the star campaigners of his party should desist from violating the Model Code of Conduct , which prohibits parties or candidates from indulging in activities that “may aggravate existing differences or create mutual hatred or cause tension between different castes and communities, religious or linguistic.”

While first Prime Minister Nehru, a few months before the conduct of the 1st general elections in 1951, indicted the communal groups for their attempts to engage in anti-social activities, the present Prime Minister, as BJP’s star campaigner, is being indicted by the Election Commission, albeit half-heartedly, for using religion and communally divisive narratives for appealing to the electorate to vote for his party.

It is instructive to note that Nehru, in another letter to Chief Ministers on October 4, 1951 wrote, “The near approach of elections has galvanized all kinds of communal parties into fierce activity”. He stated that this concerned itself not with any positive proposals but falsely targeted the Congress for its so called ‘appeasement’ policy toward Muslims.

Nehru also noted with deep anguish that the communal forces indulged in “an abundance of vulgar abuse” which, he said, went down with the crowd. He wrote with pain that the “vulgar and foolish approach and the inherent poison of communalism, which, if allowed free play, would break up India”.

However, he also expressed his optimism by writing that the “vulgar abuse peddling communalism” could be countered with presentation of facts before people, who were good enough to accept the narratives anchored in truthful account.

In another letter to Chief Ministers on November 1, 1951, Nehru referred to several aspects of electioneering as depressing and described the “ugly phenomenon of communalism” being pushed forward during the election campaign as the most dangerous development of the time.

That “dangerous” development flagged by Nehru during the first general elections is now being embraced by Prime Minister Modi with impunity, and in complete disregard of the law and the Supreme Court’s directions.

Nehru and Saving the Constitution

It is illuminating to note that Nehru, during the first general elections, wrote about the responsibility of the people in general and those occupying high offices in particular, for proper implementation of the Constitution. In a letter to Chief Ministers on April 15, 1952, while referring  to the formation on Congress ministries in Coorg, Delhi, Pepsu, Ajmer, Mysore and Madras, he wrote about the Constitution of India, defining the rights and responsibilities of the Centre and of the States. “But,” Nehru remarked, “however good the Constitution of a country might be, it depends ultimately on the people of that country, and more especially on those in positions of responsibility, how work is carried on and what results are achieved”.

Those utterances made by Nehru 72 years ago, assume added significance on the occasion of his 60th death anniversary in 2024, when election campaign is on and people have made “saving the Constitution” an electoral issue. They did so because those in positions of responsibility, such as several BJP leaders contesting to get elected to the Lok Sabha, stated that Modi after winning 400 plus seats, would change the Constitution.

The words of Nehru “however good the Constitution of a country might be, it depends ultimately on the people of that country, and more especially on those in positions of responsibility” resonates in today’s India and constitutes a propelling force for people to remind those occupying positions of responsibility not to tinker with it.

It is rather fascinating that the issue of the Constitution and its proper implementation, which Nehru said rested with those wielding power, is now being reiterated by people and they are in the forefront to defend it by making it a major election issue.

Nehru’s legacy is of enduring significance and in upholding it, we can defeat communal forces who are out to cause havoc to the ‘idea of India’ and the Constitution.  

The writer served as Officer on Special Duty to President of India K R Narayanan. The views are personal.

Courtesy: Newsclick.in

The post Nehru’s Prescient Words During 1st General Elections Resonate Today appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Monday, November 14, BBC reposted Nehru’s first TV appearance recorded in June 1953 with leading editors in London when he had gone to participate in the coronation of Queen Elizabeth. Look at the way the presenter introduced Nehru as one of the most important voices from Asia and the prime minister of India. Those who think India became the ‘vishwaguru’ only after May 2014 should watch this video and see how the veteran editors asked diverse international questions to Nehru right from China to Asia Pacific, Europe and Africa. There are no ‘advisors’ and support when Nehru faces the mighty editors. Remember, India had just got independence and yet he is continuously being referred to as the leader of Asia.

The BBC interview actually gives a lot of insight about Nehru and how calmly and confidently he interacts with top editors. There is no hype but simple answers. His words are measured and to the point. There is no attempt to reexplain or impose his view. Most of his answers were crisp and straight forward.

It has become more important to read and listen to Nehru in today’s time. Globally, it is an acknowledged fact that Nehru nurtured democracy in India which today is one of the most successful modules world over despite its varied failures. The public sector that he strengthened, the rule of law, the seriousness with which he attended parliament and respected leaders of opposition parties are reflected in his answer when an editor says that there is no opposition in India to which he responds that out of 500 odd seats of Parliament we only have 350 and rest 150 are with the opposition and they raise their voice.  He further says that though it is divided and unable to raise the issue in one voice yet we cannot impose a two party system on our people. There is an opposition, good opposition within and outside the parliament.  Nehru respected Acharya Narendra Dev, Jai Prakash and Lohia, and listened to their speeches in Parliament and outside. It is a well-known fact that he wanted Jai Prakash to be his political heir and wanted him in his cabinet.

Nehru is determinedly committed to a ‘secular’ India despite all kinds of divisions and religious polarisation which hurt the subcontinent and he had to accept it along with other political leaders of his time. Nehru clearly mentions why the Muslim League was unable to stay on. He points out that Muslim League was a party of Zamindars who were afraid of land reforms. India introduced the first biggest act for social justice in independent India with Nehru categorically emphasising that Zamindari must be abolished for an equal society. The Pakistan elite protected itself from such reforms. The first reform happened in Pakistan in 1959 under the Martial Law regime of Ayub Khan while second and third reformed happened during Zulfikar Ali Bhutto who himself had a big feudal background. For the first land reforms in 1959, Pakistan imposed a ceiling on 500-acre land for irrigated land and 1000 acres for unirrigated land. If this can be called a ‘land reform’ then, I have nothing to say. The feudal elite of Pakistan protected its vital interest and that remains true even today. So, Bhutto introduced amendments in the 1970s that brought down the ceiling for irrigated land to 150 acre and unirrigated land to 300 acre per individual. 

Unfortunately, the Pakistan Supreme Court held the Land Ceiling Act to be un-Islamic and Unconstitutional. Today, Pakistan is ruled by this landed feudal elite from Sind and Punjab.   Compare this with India when in the 1970s Indira Gandhi introduced a ceiling limit to 12 acres for irrigated land. He says that the relations between India and Pakistan are improving and we are on the right path. Look at the democracy that Nehru nurtured in India. Despite  all its failures, it provided space to the most marginalized communities to reach at the top while in Pakistan it will still be a dream where Anglican feudal elite control the political discourse. Nehru is often criticised for his approach on caste but still India provided all the remedial matters.  Can we  compare this with the other Asian countries where the issue of caste has not been accepted in political parlance except for Nepal ? The Pakistan elite did not even recognise the Dalit question compelling its first law minister Jogindernath Mandal to resign, surrender his citizenship and return to India. 

The most fascinating point that I found during the interview was the journalist’s attempt to push him to condemn communism. He did not feel any threat from communism to Indian democracy. He never accepted that violence had any role in democracy but there are issues which make the communist parties popular and we need to develop our own perception about countries and ideologies and not that from the Western lens. He refused to toe the line of the Western criticism of China and says that India shares a 2000 kilometer border with it and hence knows better about them. Nehru was definitely fascinated by the progress made by China and Russia and felt no threat from communism threatening Indian democracy even though he decried their ‘anarchy’ many times. He says, “But there is a tendency, if I may say so, for leading statesmen in Europe and America to look at the world from Europe and America. Well, if we look at the same world with the same principles, let us say Delhi or Karachi, the world looks slightly different.” “Geography counts. Take the question of China. China is a distant country to most people in Europe and America. China, the country, having a 2,000-mile frontier with India, well it’s a different picture to us immediately,” he adds.

It is an undeniable fact that the international media and intellectuals looked upon Nehru as a Statesman of the developing world or the countries which were decolonised. His voice had power and courage of conviction. He says there is an ‘awakening and enormous upsurge in a sense after three or four hundred years of European domination in Asia and Africa. It has upset their own order. Asia is coming on its own some time rightly or wrongly. We have to understand it, appreciate it or not get angry with it.”

The editors reminded him of the situation in Africa where anti colonial struggle continues and tiny white communities dominate politically through racist laws. After the decolonisation there might be unrest and tensions with the white communities in these countries. Nehru responded with great care and statesmanship. “Africa, please remember, is a continent, the most tragic continent. Hundreds of years it suffered terribly. Maybe they are not as developed as others or because they did not have the opportunity. I am deeply distressed by what is happening in Africa’. He clearly understands that there is a big difference between the problems in East Africa and West Africa. He also knows well that Western part of Africa was colonised by the French and hence he does not want to poke his nose everywhere. He says, as a prime minister, he has limitations and has to see that all his words are measured as per the government of India policy. He knows that he is speaking as head of the government to the global audience so his words are well measured. Actually, one can understand how Nehru as prime minister felt constrained and how he is missing his independence as an author, a journalist or a politician. He says Africa’s problems are different in north, central and south Africa. However, many Europeans may live there but ultimately, they have to work in cooperation with the native African people. They are outnumbered tremendously by the African population. Either they cooperate or try to suppress each other. If Europeans try to suppress Africans, undoubtedly the African will push them out.”

An editor reminds him that Indians too have been there in Kenya and other countries and perhaps more than the Europeans so what would be his advice to the Indians living over there. Now, I loved the absolutely candid reply from the Prime Minister without making any ‘nationalistic’ overtures. He says, “ Yes, we have told the Indians there year after year that they must cooperate with Africans, they should not ask for any privilege. They must not exploit the Africans or take advantage of them. I have told them, we will not support them for their demand of any privilege against Africans. If they have to live in Africa they must cooperate with Africans otherwise get out of Africa”.

What an unambiguous reply by asking people to be loyal to their countries of residence and cooperate with the majority in those countries. Look what happened to those who hate Nehru saying today. Yes, they are celebrating English victory over Pakistan just because the ‘Goras’ have a prime minister with Hindu lineage despite the well-known fact that his family had migrated to Kenya and then to UK afterwards.

Nehru’s word of advice for Indians and Europeans in Africa would have attracted prominent headlines. His opponents blame him for the Kashmir crisis and going to the United Nations without knowing the facts or distorting the history. An editor asks him about whether it would be good for UN or other countries to mediate between India and Pakistan to which Nehru reply that India went to UN not because it wanted mediation but because Pakistan was the aggressor but he also felt that there is no need for a third-party mediation as the two nations are capable of solving their own issues. Even today, India continues to have this policy as the centre of our foreign policy doctrine despite Pakistan’s attempt to internationalise it and involve third parties from the western world to intervene.

One thing is clear that a Jawahar Lal Nehru in today’s time would have been far more popular at least on the television channels as people would love his articulation. He would have been far more candid and categorical on the issues that we face today. It is unfortunate that the government of the day suffers from a serious inferiority complex as leaders after leaders who may not even write ten sentences are writing op-ed pieces condemning Nehru as the sole person for India’s crisis. It is sad that the person who respected the people’s voice in Jammu and Kashmir and worked hard to get Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah released from the jail and stand with the idea of India is being targeted in such a shameless way. 

I always felt that Nehru as a politician meant a loss  to the world of history and literature. His writings and communications with chief ministers and others show his intellect and capacity. If India today feels proud of the diversity and achievements of people from the margins and minorities then we can not ignore that the seeds of modern democratic nation were sown by Jawahar Lal Nehru. Nehru’s greatness can be understood from the fact that most of the anti-colonial leaders, the heroes of their countries turned dictators and became law unto themselves. It was Nehru who nurtured democracy. Just look around any of our neighbouring countries in those times, it was India alone which had democracy and political stability.

For today’s bootlickers watching Nehru interacting with top editors of the world or speaking with the students at the universities or meeting with various world leaders at international conferences can be shocking as they have only learnt history through WhatsApp and post 2014. Every interaction gives you lots of food for thought, his selection of words and the lyricism in his language is simply fascinating. India was fortunate to have a prime minister with such a big vision which made us stronger and better comparatively. 

We have examples of our neighbour where religion intoxicated the political climate and military interventions denied people their legitimate democratic rights. India performed well because political leadership was secular, respected diversity of languages, cultures and religions. Today, the vision that Nehru gave to India is under threat. Instead of respecting diversity the state keeps imposing oneness on this huge country. Oneness for them is imposition of Brahmanical values on every one in the form of Hindi-Hindu-Hindustan. 

Oneness can happen despite being diverse but the Hindutva’s oneness is through imposed uniformity which is actually threatening our national integrity. India is not just an administrative unit run by the caste elite of north India but an emotion where each one despite being of diverse languages, regions, religions and cultures actually feel for each other and care for the idea of an inclusive India where all have space to flourish. That way, we need Nehruvian India where all communities live together, respect each other and enjoy their relationship on the basis of being citizens of India. 

Let India remain a republic by focussing on people’s centric issues and not convert it into old forms of Kingdom where the Raja Maharaja were least bothered about people’s rights but gave them ‘temples’, mosques’ and dharmshalas in the name of people’s ‘welfare’. 

A modern secular democratic India is an aspiring India and the thirst of the young India can not be quenched through enslaving people more and more into religious rituals but developing the scientific temper, respecting humanist values and submitting to our modern constitution which our constitutional forefathers led by Baba Saheb Ambedkar gave us.

Jawahar Lal Nehru’s first TV appearance provided us with a glimpse into the power of his personality and convictions as he responded to all the questions aimed at him with confidence and absolute clarity. Remember, it was the beginning of television and he was speaking for the first time. 

These editors were not there to ‘flatter’ him nor was there any PR agency like what we witness today. Can we expect our leaders speaking to international media in such a simple manner without any ‘assistance’ or ‘makeover’? 

Frankly speaking, the Nehru conversation proved that those who are abusing him day and night are suffering from a great inferiority complex both politically as well as intellectually. There are huge lessons for all of us when we hear him and we must make use of all his writings and videos in the greater interest of our nation.

The post Understanding Nehru’s world vision: the first TV appearance on BBC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

BHARAT DOGRA pays tribute to a great editor and freedom fighter
 
While several journalists and newspapers made an important contribution to the freedom movement, the contribution made by Ganesh Shankar Vidyarthi and his newspaper Pratap is unique for many reasons.

Firstly this was a rare newspaper in that, during the critical decade of 1920-31, it was as well known for its support of the Gandhi-led Congress movement as it was for its sympathetic coverage of the revolutionary movement led by Shahid Bhagat Singh and Chandra Shekhar Azad.

Gandhiji and Jawaharlal Nehru had the highest praise for Vidyarthi while Bhagat Singh and his colleagues consulted him on important issues. Bhagat Singh also worked for Pratap for some time as an assistant editor of sorts and contributed articles under the pen name of Balwant Singh. As a meeting point of these two waves of the freedom movement, at a very sensitive period, Vidyarthi and Pratap played a unique role unsurpassed by any other editor or newspaper of those days.

Secondly, both as a freedom fighter and a leading editor, Vidyarthi always emphasized the importance of communal harmony. Ultimately, he sacrificed his life at the young age of 41 for Hindu-Muslim unity while trying to rescue victims of communal violence in 1931.
 

Thirdly, Vidyarthi and his paper combined their support of the freedom movement with constant coverage of the struggles of peasants and workers. Pratap published several detailed reports of the oppression of peasants by zamindars. To mention only a few, it carried reports on peasants on indigo plantations, firing on the agitating peasants of Rai Bareilly, and the many-sided oppression in Champaran. Other memorable reports published in Pratap included reports on the struggles of textile workers and on various forms of slave labour.

Reports which are likely to fetch journalism awards these days invariably fetched prison sentences in those days. Not surprisingly,  Vidyarthi had one foot in prison while bringing out Pratap. In fact, his time at the helm of the paper, guiding and editing Pratap, was disrupted by as many as five prison sentences.

In addition, there were other threats all the time, including raids on the offices and press as well as many defamation cases filed by powerful and extremely rich persons and institutions. Perhaps the greatest difficulties were created by the cases that were filed in the fiefs of various royals and their riyasats as even the pretence of a justice system did not exist. Undeterred, Vidyarthi went ahead with publishing daring exposes of the oppression faced by people under the rule of royal families such as those of Bijaulia, Gwalior and Bharatpur.

The prison sentences which Vidyarthi endured served to strengthen his role as a civil liberties activist and writer. He himself wrote about the terrible conditions inside prisons faced by freedom fighters and the need for urgent jail reforms. As to his own experiences, this astonishing editor used his time in jail to translate several of Victor Hugo’s work into Hindi.

Inspiring Life
Starting his life as a journalist in Kanpur with journals like Saraswati and Abhyudya,  Vidyarthi soon attracted attention due to his hard work and deep commitment to public causes. When, at the very young age of 23, he decided to start a weekly magazine called Pratap devoted to his social concerns, several friends and supporters such as Shiv Narain Mishra and Narayan Prasad Arora came forward to help him.
 

Despite the many problems faced by the new magazine and the disruptions created by the government and other forces, people needed  a courageous magazine and responded so well that in the middle of all the problems, a big decision was taken in 1920 to convert it into a daily newspaper.

Subsequently this Kanpur-based newspaper became widely known as the one widely read media outlet where stories relating to the misdeeds of the colonial government, as well the royals in collusion with the regime, were most likely to be published and that too in the most fearless way.

By 1930 Pratap became the most widely circulated newspaper in the United Provinces. One of its great strengths was its ability to create an effective network of reliable local stringers instead of relying on the same English news agencies as other publications.

Although Vidyarthi had to quit as editor for short periods because of jail sentences and legal complications arising from defamation and other cases, he came back repeatedly to edit and guide the newspaper. Even during the period when his name may not have appeared as the editor in a formal way owing to the fact that he was in prison, he was widely regarded as the newspaper’s single most important asset.  

The growing popularity of the newspaper and its editor made it increasingly difficult for the colonial government to initiate frequent action against them without attracting criticism. In 1925-26 Vidyarthi was elected to the UP Legislative Council. In 1929 he was elected to head the Congress in this important province.

The British government was most troubled by this development since Vidyarthi enjoyed the confidence and support of the Congress as well as the revolutionaries. He was arrested in May 1930 at a time when the popularity of Bhagat Singh and his companions had begun to peak. He came out of prison on March 9, 1931 and immediately plunged deep into important work.

When Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev were hanged by the colonial government on March 23, protests broke out in various parts of the country and Kanpur, under Vidyarthi’s leadership, was all set to emerge as a leading centre of such protests. At this stage, to prevent this happening, communal riots were deliberately instigated and Vidyarthi was killed during these riots while he was on his way to the most dangerous spots to rescue trapped people. 
Gandhi paid his tribute to Vidyarthi with the words: “His blood will become the cementing bond for inter-faith harmony.” Jawaharlal Nehru said: “In his death he has taught a lesson that we in our life can’t equal for years.”
After Vidyarthi's death the role played by Pratap declined gradually though it continued for some years thereafter. 
 
Bharat Dogra is a freelance journalist who has been involved with several social initiatives and movements. He is also the co-author of a booklet on Ganesh Shankar Vidyarthi with Reshma Bharti.

Sources
1.     Salil, Suresh, (Editor): Ganesh Shankar Vidyarthi Granthavali (collected works), Anamika Publishers and Distributors.
2.     M.L. Bhargava: Ganesh Shankar Vidyarthi Publications Division, Government of India.
3.     Francesca Orsini: The Hindi Public Sphere 1920-1940, Language and Literature in the Age of Nationalism, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4.     Gyanendra Pandey: Mobilisation in a Mass Movement: Congress ‘Propaganda’ in the United Provinces 1930-1934, Modern Asian Studies, 9 (2) 1975.
5.     Kama Maclean: A Revolutionary History of Interwar India, Penguin Books.
6.     Reshma Bharti and Bharat Dogra: Jeevan-Mrityu Dono Mein Prerna Srot Bane Ganesh Shankar Vidyarthi, Social Change Papers, Delhi

Courtesy: thehoot.org
 

The post The giant who straddled Nehru and Bhagat Singh appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Jan 24, 1993, The Indian Express 
‘Advani promises Muslim welfare’ 
AHMEDABAD: The Bharatiya Janata party (BJP) president, Mr. LK Advani warned Muslims to be aware of both Congress and their leaders and repose faith in the BJP…When a newsman sought to know the measures the BJP was contemplating for the welfare of Muslims to win their confidence, Mr. Advani said, “The BJP will protect their lives and they will enjoy equal justice.” Asked why he chose to skip the Muslim affected areas (due to riots) or relief camps in Ahmedabad, he quipped, “It’s a good suggestion for action.”

April 15, 1994, The Economic Times 
BJP bid to shake off anti-Muslim image
NEW DELHI: The Bharatiya Janata Party seems to have begun to feel concerned over the anti-Muslim tag that has come to stick to it and it likely to embark on an exercise to shake it off. A serious effort in that direction was made at the recent Sariska conclave of the BJP’s top brass with the senior vice-president, Mr KR Malkani, spelling out the concern over the party having been branded as an anti-Muslim outfit. 

March 29, 1995, The Statesman
Muslims have nothing to fear under BJP rule: Keshubhai
NEW DELHI: Muslims have nothing to fear under the rule of the BJP government in Gujarat and can look forward to getting a much better deal than what they got during Congress(I) rule, the state chief minister, Mr. Keshubhai Patel has said. “You will see how well we treat Muslims and other minorities under our rule”, the new chief minister said, adding that his party believed that Muslims were as patriotic as Hindus, but had been “misled and misused by the Congress(I). 

April 21, 1995, The Indian Express
BJP tries to win over Muslims with Sanskrit Koran
BOMBAY: The Koran in Sanskrit? The idea is not as bizarre as it may seem. His is the spoonful of honey for the Muslim minority in the country… The in-camera convention of top BJP executives, including chief ministers, deputy chief ministers and leaders of Opposition, which got underway on Thursday, has been called to finalise poll strategies for the Lok Sabha elections which the BJP expects might take place earlier than scheduled. High on the agenda is a follow-up of the resolutions with regard to the minorities at the Goa convention of the party early this month whereby, following BJP president LK Advani’s call to “remove misconceptions (about the BJP) in the minds of the minorities”, the party resolved to revive the earlier Congress slogan of Hindu-Muslim bhai-bhai. The more well-known of the resolutions were the three Ts – taaleem (education), tanzeem (organisation) and tijarat (employment) for Muslims.

May 2, 1996, The Telegraph
Advani ‘guarantees’ justice to Muslims
MUMBAI: The BJP president, Mr. LK Advani, today extended a “guarantee to every Muslim” of “security, justice, equality and full freedom of faith and worship.” Going all out to woo the community in the last lap of the party’s campaign, he said “no BJP government will tolerate any dilution of this guarantee.”

May 19, 1996, Mid–Day
Full protection to Muslims: Vajpayee
NEW DELHI: …In a long interview to a private television channel, Vajpayee said that all Muslims should be able to live with self-respect and honour. “For this, Muslims should give all support to my government”, he said  adding that he could not understand why the community was keeping away the mainstream”. 

June 16, 1997, The Times of India
Advani uses every trick to woo Muslim voter
BHOPAL: Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) president, LK Advani, on Friday praised Jawaharal Nehru for his secular policies and promised to create a riot-free, violence-free and discrimination-free India when the BJP comes to power at the Centre.

November 15, 1997, The Asian Age
BJP plans a grand Muslim convention
NEW DELHI: In what will be a show of Muslim support for the BJP, the party’s youth wing, headed by Ms Uma Bharati, is planning a grand convention on December 4 which will be attended by over 5,000 members of the community.
According to the party, such a large number of Muslims attending a BJP conference itself will send the signal that the community was not averse to it any longer. “In a scenario where elections are expected any moment, such a message will be crucial for us. We will use the opportunity to wash the communal taint”, BJP sources told The Asian Age. 

May 3, 1999, The Hindustan Times
BJP’s image as anti-Muslim party blunted: Vajpayee
Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee today said his bus initiative to Lahore had greatly blunted the “false image” of the BJP of being an anti-Muslim party. 
May 8, 1999, The Times of India
‘BJP will get Muslim votes’
NEW DELHI: The BJP finds a “radical change” in the attitude of Muslim voters and is confident of getting “a major share of their votes” in the coming Lok Sabha polls as the party has given them a feeling of national pride unlike the so-called secular parties which always portrayed them in a poor light”, minister for information and broadcasting Mukhtar bbas Naqvi said. 

September 8, 1999, The Times of India
PM appeals for Muslim votes
Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee on Tuesday asked voters to make the Opposition “pay the price” for bringing down his government and give a clear decisive majority to the BJP-led coalition…Making a special appeal to the minorities (during his election broadcast on Doordarshan), Mr Vajpayee said national unity without a firm commitment to secularism was unthinkable. He said that contrary to the propaganda of “our adversaries”, the past 17 months have been remarkably free from communal tension. 

September 11, 2000, The Asian Age
BJP trying to woo Muslims for more votes: Sher Khan 
Former Union minister Aslam Sher Khan has blamed Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and Union home minister LK Advani for not keeping their word about upliftment of minorities and said the BJP’s new incarnation is a well-calculated move to mislead minorities and dalits on the eve of Assembly elections in five states. Mr Sher Khan, who had joined the BJP in 1997 said that he quit the party within one year after realising that the BJP had no love for Muslims and dalits and wanted to use them as a ladder to achieve power.
 

…and performance

Two states, Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh, both under BJP rule, have truly imbibed saffron values of governance. For Muslims, Christians and Dalits inhabiting these two states in northern and western India, the past two years have meant living in vastly altered circumstances — always under threat, sometimes physically attacked. 
What has been the lived experience of India’s minorities in these two ‘laboratories of Hindu rashtra’?

• Since 1998, when VHP-Bajrang Dal squads hounded Muslims out of their villages in Randhikpur and Sanjeli, life for the Muslim in Gujarat is marked. Where he lives,  what he eats, how he celebrates his festivals – everything is under close surveillance.
• Last month, ‘retaliation’ against Gujarat’s Muslims for the killing of Amarnath yatris in Kashmir by Pakistan-inspired mercenaries, meant a loss of Rs 20 crore worth of Muslim property in Surat (powerlooms), Sabarkantha (printing presses) and elsewhere in the state. 
• In July 1999, the Kargil war had its spillover in Ahmedabad’s own ‘war zones’ as BJP’s Yuva Morcha splashed provocative graffiti in Muslim areas to taunt and provoke Indian Muslims – “Ab to nagara baj chuka hai, sarhad pe shaitan ka/ Nakshe par se nam mita do, paapi Pakistan ka/ Khun se tilak karo, goliyon se arti/Pukarti hai yeh zameen, pukarti Ma Bharti”.
• Muslims are forcibly prevented from buying property in ‘secular’ areas of Ahmedabad, Rajkot, Baroda and other Gujarat cities and forced to reside in ‘ghettoes’.
• At the Hindu-managed VR Somani and Bhakta Vallabh schools, where 95 per cent of the students are Muslims but the teachers are Hindus, the teachers have adopted a unique technique of getting at the students: they just do not teach.
• Muslim students and teachers in schools in many cities in Gujarat are forced to sit, or be invigilators, for examinations on Eid day.
• In many Gujarati-medium schools run by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, at the beginning of the class, Muslim students are asked to sit separately. 
• A recent circular by the Gujarat Education department will force all students to write their names on examination sheets of school and government examinations. This will leave the religious identity of the student in no doubt, making discrimination possible and introduction of the religious element in the assessment of answers. 
• Dozens of prominent politicians belonging to the ruling BJP in Gujarat and its allied organisations, like the VHP and Bajrang Dal, have been named in police FIRs (see Communalism Combat, October 1998 and April 2000. The Gujarat DGP, CP Singh, even admitted to the culpability of these organisations but needless to say no action has been taken.
• Since 1998, more than 200 Christian institutions – both secular and religious — have been attacked and Christian religious persons killed or assaulted; a vast majority of these attacks have taken place in Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh.
• A virtual curfew during Christmas at the Dangs in south Gujarat in 1998 was a shameful travesty of the Indian Constitution. In December 1999, too, despite protests, Christians in the area had to suffer protests and terror.
• The echelons of the higher judiciary and the police and paramilitary are being filled with devoted RSS followers committed to a sectarian and inequitous polity.
• Not a single educational institution has been granted minority status during the entire tenure of the BJP in UP, off and on since 1990.
• As of now, not a single district magistrate or a superintendent of police in UP is a Muslim.
• The UP state Minorities Commission was scrapped during Kalyan Singh’s first tenure. Under pressure of a coalition partner, the Gupta-led ministry has now revived the commission; but only in name.
• In 1998, Kalyan Singh’s tenure was marked by gross human rights violations, wherein most of the victims of brutal encounters by the state police were Dalits and Muslims;
• In 1998, the UP minister of state for home announced an insidious plan linking every state-run school to the local RSS sarsanghchalak (known as the kulp yojana, it ran into rough weather after a storm of protests but it has not been formally withdrawn); Neither Keshubhai Patel’s promise of 1995 — “You will see how well we treat Muslims and other minorities under our rule” – nor LK Advani’s 1996 ‘guarantee to every Muslim” — “security, justice, equality and full freedom of faith and worship,” — has been of much help to the hapless Muslims and Christians of Gujarat. Bangaru Laxman’s invitation to Muslims notwithstanding, apparently, Hindutva and religious minorities simply don’t mix!

The post Saffron promises and performance appeared first on SabrangIndia.