Just yesterday, my daughter asked me if “democracy” alone might not have sufficed in the topic of today’s speech. Was it necessary to include “constitutional”? I thought that was a significant question. We need to understand why we must stress on the Constitution, and why our democracy rests on the Constitution.

Some days ago, in January this year, the Vice President of India [Jagdeep Dhankar] stated during a meeting attended by presiding officers of state legislatures that the judiciary was intruding into the territory of the legislature. He commented on the verdict of a case that was adjudicated by the Supreme Court 48 years ago, that settled in law that the basic structure of the Constitution could not be changed.

He mentioned that if the elected representatives of the people of India in Parliament wished to change the Constitution, then that ruling of 1973, the Kesavananda Bharati case could not be cited to deny them that right. He contended that such opposition to changing the Constitution was against the principle of democracy. The judiciary, in the opinion of the Vice President, was extending its reach by ruling thus. According to the Vice President, the Parliament is free to alter the Constitution as it sees fit, according to its wisdom. That, to him, is democracy.

This is not the opinion of the Vice President of India alone – there are others who hold this view and in recent years, it is as if a whole movement has been orchestrated to mainstream this view. At occasions of national importance, we have speakers aligned to a particular worldview expressing the view that if the people of India wish to give themselves a new Constitution, they must be free to do that. It is as if the doctrine of the basic structure of the Constitution goes against the popular will.

Today, we must try to understand this point of view, where it springs from and the conspiracy that this represents. We need to understand the thousands of years of Indian history and the good and bad in our society. We need to understand the principles that inspired India’s struggle for freedom, and the basis on which that struggle proved successful.

Our struggle for independence was not targeted only at the end of imperialism – it was also a movement for reform within the nation. Our freedom fighters envisaged a nation where inequality would end – where all citizens had equal opportunity, where no distinction was made on the basis of religion, caste, region or colour. It was on the basis of these principles that, at the last meeting of the Constituent Assembly of India on 26 November 1946, the Constitution of India was signed and accepted.

It was on this basis that the preamble outlined:

WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens:

JUSTICE, social, economic and political;

LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;

EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all

FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation;

IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.

The ideals that form the basis of this preamble have served to power the progress of our nation and society. The basis of the resolution draws from the insights of our freedom struggle. Our democracy rests on these principles. These are the principles that the Supreme Court defined as the basic structure of the Constitution; these principles thus cannot be changed. The Constitution of the land is Supreme, and no power can change its basic structure.

For 75 years, the Indian nation had adopted these principles and charted its path to progress. The democracy of India rests on these principles; ours is a Constitutional democracy that draws on the struggle for freedom, and is guided by the principles that underlay that struggle.

These are principles that cannot be sacrificed on the altar of majoritarianism. To accept a majoritarian diktat would be to proclaim the failure of our struggle for freedom. An India at ease with inequality, that does not care for socialism or secularism, would be an India untrue to her founding fathers.

Without those founding principles, India would lapse into rule by caste, religious divisions and inequity. That is why ours is a democracy that runs on Constitutional principles, and does not follow the law of the mob, or majority diktat. John Adams, who served as the president of the United States between 1797-1801 said that a Constitutional democracy runs on the basis of the law, not on the basis of what people in power – or out of it – might feel or think.

Friends, a system that runs on the law, where the Constitution is supreme, where equality is part of the basic structure – there are vested interests that would not like to see such a system function. Just as such a state emerges that works for the welfare of the people, forces are unleashed to topple it. That is the lesson we learn from history. Whenever the few in power find that democracy is empowering the many, a movement emerges to stem the march of democracy.

There were revolutions in the US and France in the 18th century; the 19th century brought revolution to many European nations; the Russian Revolution of 1917 is well known; democracy and the rule of law were the inspiration for many of these revolutions. At the core, these were movements for the freedom of the exploited and the suppressed. These revolutions were suppressed, and by the early 20th century, the movements for fascism and Nazism gained momentum, leading the world to war.

Using the methods of democracy, dictatorships arose that campaigned for the superiority of a certain race and nation. In Germany and Italy, fascist powers used propaganda that sold the lie that the people were of different and superior quality. It was that sense of superiority, based on the lies of dictators, that led to the horrible extermination of fellow-humans. Such lies are a threat to human civilisation and leave in their wake the ruins of war. It was felt after World War II that such lies would never again hold sway over people, and that the lessons of history would be learnt for good. But that is not the case.

After World War II, many countries of Asia and Africa were freed from the control of European imperial powers. Burma (Myanmar), Sri Lanka, Indonesia and India were among the newly freed nations after World War II. With India’s partition, Pakistan came into being. The Philippines too emerged free and was no longer a colony of the US. These were nations engaged in a peaceful globalization, choosing to tread the path of peace and progress through rule of law.

Yet, forces within these nations that were fascist were unnerved by the progress towards a constitutional order and unleashed chaos. On August 15, 1947, even as communal riots raged, India and Pakistan emerged as independent nations. On January 20, 1948, Gandhiji was shot dead at a prayer meeting in Delhi. In October 1951, Liaquat Ali Khan, Pakistan’s first prime minister, was shot dead while he was addressing an audience at Rawalpindi. Just a day ahead of his assassination, Liaquat Ali Khan had proposed an amendment to the Pakistan Constitution aimed at checking the influence of religious groups. In 1959, Sri Lanka president Bandarnaike was killed by a Buddhist monk.

There is a pattern to all these instances in the nations of our region – Gandhi was shot dead by a Hindu right-wing man; a Muslim extremist pulled the trigger of the gun that killed Liaquat Ali Khan; Bandarnaike was felled by a Buddhist monk. The assassins were all men with an affiliation to extremist organisations.

Social equality, a Constitutional democracy and balance in public life are not acceptable to those steeped in fascist ideology. Despite the attempts of such fascists to derail the march to equality and democracy, nations have progressed towards better governance through an acceptance of the principles of Constitutional democracy. The progress and empowerment of Dalit groups, religious minorities and other backward communities, however, would not be welcomed by right-wing extremists.

For the first time in world history, a black man became president of the US in 2008 when Barack Obama assumed that office. White supremacists then raised that old slogan of “Make America Great Again”, which until then the people of the country had not paid heed to. However, it was that slogan that caused Donald Trump to ride into the presidency of the US in 2016. Fascist forces have been on the rise not only in the US but in other parts of the world too, manifesting in different forms. The iconic Hagia Sophia in Turkey, a country once renowned for leaders like Kemal Ataturk, was converted from a museum into a mosque.

In India, there are groups that have been singing the praises of Gandhi’s murderer. A whole movement for the conversion of masjids into temples has been launched, and people of a particular religious persuasion are being targeted for no reason. The sad reality is that these forces of disruption and violence have the silent support of what appears to be a majority. The reason for such support is that lie lodged deep within, the lie that refuses to die a quiet death, and which tells us that we are superior.

Fascist powers make use of differences in culture or language to promote differences and sow the seeds of false pride. With the discourse turning to these, the real issues that people grapple with in their daily lives – inflation and joblessness, for instance, recede to the background. In our country, these fascist powers have much to feed on; culture, language, region, religion and other differences are all used to feed this project of creating differences and causing division.

Caste, for instance, is an insidious marker of identity that leaves people marked even without their knowledge or consent. Fascist forces draw on such markers of identity to entrench the divisions between people, causing murder and mayhem in the name of religion or whatever else fuels that false sense of superiority. Fascism stands at our door now, flexing its muscles. It is necessary that we recognise the dangers we face, for only when we strengthen our adherence to Constitutional values can we deal with the rise of fascism.

Just some decades back, caste and religion were bases on which discrimination was frowned on. These days, such discrimination is seen as virtuous. There was a time, not so long ago, when inter-caste marriage was encouraged and incentivised by [the] government. Kavitaji [Chairperson of the People’s Union for Civil Liberties Kavita Srivastava] tells me that there is still a scheme of Rs 10,000 reward for an inter-caste marriage – that’s a good thing. We must be mindful, though, that there are parts of the country where couples engaging in such relationships are punished.

What is worse, society even today does not accept, but instead punishes, young couples seeking to marry from outside their caste group. Young women fear entering into such marriages, for they risk boycott by their families. Girls fear that younger siblings will then find it harder to get partners, if they dare break traditional caste taboos. I would appeal to each of you to encourage such marriages in your own families. We hope to break such taboos and the fascists are nourished by these traditions.

PUCL [People’s Union for Civil Liberties] and other such organisations make it their business to take on the fascist ideology at all levels, and to relentlessly oppose the fascist agenda.

This is a struggle in which the judiciary has an important role. The judiciary is the custodian of the Constitution. The people of India have deep faith in the judicial system. An ordinary person takes on the powerful – whether individuals or institutions – with the faith that justice will be done by the Indian judiciary. That is why the fascist forces have their eyes on the judicial system too. Given the faith of the Indian people and the strength of India’s Constitution, however, it is not easy to end or dismantle the Indian judiciary.

The Bar Council, Bar Association, individual lawyers – all of them have a great role to play in keeping alive the fairness of the judicial system and defeating attempts to control it. These are the people who raise the torments of the common people under the Constitution, in the courts. These are people with close links to the common Indian, and can use the Constitution and the law of the land to bring them relief.

There are a few other small points I would like to bring to your attention.

There is a big disease of the enlargement of singular personalities to deities, which could cause much damage to the nation. This magnification of individuals has already reached scary proportions in India. We need to look for solace not in individuals but in the rule of law and that is a habit we need to develop as a nation. Otherwise, we are bound to face disappointment and destruction, and no one can then save us.

The cult of the personality, the tendency to exaggerate the power of individuals – that is a symptom of fascism, and we need to be wary of it. We have now come to the point of Vyakti Puja – worship of the individual – and that habit has set in very deep. If you look at streets in the US, UK or other nations, you will seldom find them named after individuals – in our country, you will be hard-pressed to find a street not named after an individual. Even hospitals and schools are named after individuals. All junctions have statues of individuals. What is sad is that since independence this worship of individuals has only deepened. This is a tendency that we need to counter – within this lie the seeds of fascism.

When it comes to human rights, if we can uphold our Constitution, there is no doubt at all that human rights will be secure in India. Part three of the Constitution [fundamental rights] offers a shield to human rights. The Supreme Court and other courts have only expanded on these protections. These days, we speak not only of the rights of human beings but of all things sentient. If anything remains to be covered, there are provisions within the Directive Principles that cover those areas too, quite comprehensively.

We need to ensure that the legislature makes laws in accordance with those principles, and that the executive implements them in right earnest. [Social activist] Aruna Roy has suggested that we form a human chain to ensure the protection of our rights – we need to see that this human chain works also to direct the legislature and the executive to work in accordance with the Directive Principles of State Policy.

Meena Kotwal is here on the dias – it is important to give a voice to the voiceless, and that is what she is doing through her channel, Mooknayak.

Please do not stay silent. If you see something wrong, speak up. Raise your voices for the right thing. I say this to you and to my friends in the judiciary. As the custodian of the Constitution, the judiciary has an important task. If Constitutional values are being violated, then the judiciary should take these matters up suo motu. That is the constitutional responsibility of a judge.

These days, without a proper understanding of their significance, public interest litigation is getting a lot of flak. PILs [public interest litigations] are an important means of protecting constitutionally guaranteed rights. Wherever necessary and appropriate, PILs ought to be used. This is one way of voicing pain. Whenever you feel you must speak, when you think silence would give free rein to injustice, do not remain silent.

Right in front of me, in this hall, is the picture of Ram Manohar Lohia. He had said, “Zinda komein paanch saal nahi intezaar karti” meaning “Living communities/nations do not wait for five years”. Please stay alive – if there is an incident where you think you need to speak out, then make it clear to people that you are alive and will react. Please stay alive, and where necessary, speak up.

Thank you for listening to me. I wish for the success of this assembly.

(The author, Justice Mathur retired in 2021 after serving as Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court; the entire speech has also been published in the PUCL Bulletin of May, 2023)

Related:

Majoritarianism doesn’t enhance rights or material benefits of majority community: Prabhat Patnaik

Nehru, Ambedkar and Challenge of Majoritarianism

The post The principles of democracy can’t be scarified at altar of majoritarianism: Justice Govind Mathur appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“The survival of democracy depends upon the getting rid of majoritarianism”, explained Prof. Prabhat Patnaik, prominent Marxist Economist and author, while delivering the 13^th Dr. Asghar Ali Engineer Memorial Lecture on 18^th November at Jamia Millia Ismailia (JMI) University in Delhi. The Memorial Lecture, chaired by Prof. Rajeev Bhargav, noted Indian political theorist, was organized by the Centre for Study of Society and Secularism (CSSS) in collaboration with the Department of Political Science at JMI. The Lecture was attended by over 200 students, academics, journalists, scholars and members of the civil society organizations. Prof. Furqan Ahmed, H ead of Political Science Dept. welcomed all the guests assembled, including eminent citizens – Mani Shankar Aiyar Prof. Zoya Hassan, Neshat Quaiser and Vijay Pratap Singh.

In the lecture titled, “Democracy versus Majoritarianism”, Prof. Patnaik, very lucidly presented a brilliant framework to understand the current political discourse in India grappling with the binary of majority and minority and the related divisive politics. Prof. Patnaik explained how majority and minority are constructed in a country and how majoritarianism seeks to limit the rights of the minority. He went on to elaborate the causes and supporting factors of majoritarianism and also how it can be and should be countered given its adverse ramifications on democracy. One of the primary reasons that the Lecture got a resounding applause and appreciation from the audience, apart from the erudite scholarship of Prof. Patnaik which reflected in his seamless delivery of the lecture, was the very relevance and direct connection it had with the socio-political and economic context unfolding in India which is marked by majoritarianism, intolerance to dissent, violence and exclusion against the vulnerable groups. Not only did he deconstruct the terms majority, minority and majoritarianism, he also suggested possible ways to arrest majoritarianism through meticulous analysis and calculations.

At the very outset, Prof. Patnaik while defining majority and minority, made a distinction between the constructed or created notion of majority and minority against the empirical notion of majority and minority. The construction is deliberate and planned as opposed to spontaneous, he clarified. He explained that this political formation of majority and minority are created to abridge the rights of the minority in the name of the majority. This abridgement or violations of the rights of the minority is attributed to the “retribution” for the “sins” that the conceptually-created “minority” is supposed to have committed or be committing. This analysis of Prof. Patnaik resonates with the demonization and hysteria created against the minorities in the country and justifying it by referring to the alleged cruelty of Mughal rulers.

But does this frenzy whipped up against the minority and the tirade berating the minority really ameliorate the condition of the majority or have tangible gains for the majority? One often wonders to what end is this hatred propagated which claims many innocent lives and tears apart the social fabric. The answer to this question was provided by Prof. Patnaik who said that abridging the rights of the minority precludes any actual or material benefit to the majority. This position is explained again by two reasons- firstly, material benefit like jobs and opportunities is not the concern of majoritarian project and secondly, the rights of the very group that is the minority that it seeks to abridge is marginalized and already disempowered. Thus, abridging the rights of the minority creates no space or more opportunities in favor of the majority. This is a point well made when the narrative that is sought to be pushed is that there is a historical conflict of interest between the minority and majority in India. Prof. Patnaik also cleared up another misconception that majoritarianism doesn’t seek to displace a privileged minority from its position of privilege and thus doesn’t have an agenda of social justice or democracy.

Prof. Patnaik pointed out that though the majoritarianism would seek the support of the majority to abridge the rights of the minority, in reality it doesn’t necessarily enjoy the support of the majority. Yet the majoritarian agenda is promoted due to some loopholes in our electoral system which enables the political party getting the largest number of votes instead of getting a majority in terms of votes to form the government. He gave an example of the BJP, which though polled only 38 percent of votes and not majority votes has still managed to form a government under this electoral system. This brings us to another question that if the support of the majority and also absolute majority in terms of votes in the electoral system are not essential for majoritarianism then how does it thrive? Prof. Patnaik dealt with this question in two parts. He said that majoritarianism arises out of conducive social context. This specific social context he points out is economic crisis and has economic roots. Though in his formulation, he precluded any material benefit for the majority from majoritarianism, he emphasized that unemployment and the precipitating economic crisis is a fertile ground for spreading the agenda of majoritarianism especially if a narrative which blames this economic crisis on the minority is given impetus.

In the second part of the answer as to how majoritarianism thrives, he explained the use of instruments which aid it. One example given already is of the lacuna in the electoral system. The others, he mentioned are the fear and insecurity amongst the people. Fear and insecurity are promoted through draconian sedition laws like the UAPA which are aimed at silencing all dissent, demands for civil liberties and human rights. This has resulted in only one sided narratives to be allowed in public discourse, couched in hypernationalism and vilification of the minorities which amplifies the silence due to fear of attracting the seditious laws. And finally, the third instrument which aids the thriving of majoritarianism, is the support of the corporate- financial oligarchy. This kind of support brings in massive funding for political parties. Prof. Patnaik gave the example of BJP which spent a reported Rs.27000 crores in the last parliamentary election, which averages to about Rs.50 crores per constituency. This nexus also controls the media. All these instruments can be categorized as control over the state. Control over the state makes it easier for the promotion of the agenda of majoritarianism which makes it absolutely crucial to select a political party with scruples to govern the country and which doesn’t use state power to the end of majoritarianism.

The most crucial part of Prof. Patnaik’s Lecture which had import on the way forward for any democracy and especially the Indian democracy which is coming to terms with the challenge of majoritarianism, was the steps to arrest majoritarianism at different levels. First measure he suggested was tactical alliances that should be forged by all political forces to uphold democracy. The convergence points for forge such unity could be the opposition to  undemocratic practices, like using the CBI or the ED against political opponents, removing sedition laws and other such draconian legislation from the statute books, and curbing the menace of lynch-mobs. But at the same time, he cautioned that merely forming alliances for electoral success is not the only solution. The very conjuncture that produces majoritarianism has to be changed.

This conjuncture of majoritarianism can be changed in a number of ways. One way is to revisit the Karachi Congress Resolution 1931, which explicitly discusses the idea of the new India. This resolution was also an embodiment of anti-colonial nationalism and the inclusive nationalism on which independent India was founded on. Prof. Patnaik emphasized on the characteristics of this anti-colonial nationalism- that it was inclusive wherein it accommodates all sections of the society, it was not imperialistic where it did not seek hegemony over its people and finally it did not put the nation above its people, it gave primacy to the welfare of the people. Today India needs this nationalism and not the jingoistic nationalism which has gained prominence.

 Second way to change the conjuncture of majoritarianism, he suggested, was to expand the fundamental rights given in the Constitution to include justiciable economic rights.  He explained that currently, economic rights are part of the directive principles of state policy and are not justiciable. However as Ambedkar had also lamented, Prof. Patnaik observed that political democracy can’t be realized without economic democracy. To overcome this dichotomy, economic rights that ensure minimum standard of living to everyone must be made justiciable. He went on to explain the different arguments that are raised to demonstrate how economic rights are not workable, one of them being the lack of capacity of the economy to support this expenditure. But he insisted that democracy and welfare of the citizens must take precedence over the economic order which benefits capitalists.

Prof. Patnaik substantiated his argument in favour of justiciable economic rights by providing a calculation he has arrived at for raising needed finances. According to him, in order to ensure five economic rights, namely, right to food, right to livelihood, right to free quality healthcare, the right to free public education of quality at least up to the secondary level to start with, and the right to adequate non-contributory universal old-age pension and disability benefits, 11.76 lakh crores will have to be raised over and above the present expenditure on these heads.  Raising 11.76 lakh crores he said was possible by implementing two measures- firstly by imposing two percent of wealth tax on the one percent of the top rich and secondly by imposing 33 per cent tax on the inheritance that is passed down each year by these one per cent of wealth-holders. He explained that capitalism demands that the capitalist earns profits himself accruing to his own merit and not enjoy inheritance. Thus, taxing inheritance is plausible way of raising the needed finance.

Finally, Prof. Patnaik cautioned that India which moving towards facism from majoritarianism and this is posing a formidable challenge in Indian democracy. In order to nurture Indian democracy, it is essential that there is an all inclusive nationalism like the anti-colonial nationalism which is starkly opposite from the Hindutva- hypernationalism. Prof. Rajeev Bhargav while appreciating the formulations presented by Prof. Patnaik, also reiterated that there are two notions of majority and minority- preference based and electoral based and these notions are temporary. Minority doesn’t imply necessarily numerical strength or the lack of it but attributed the construction of minority to the deprivation of power to shape the political culture and realization of their rights. He also emphasized on the salience of community rights based on egalitarianism in India which has layers of hierarchy.

The audience was captivated by the sheer smooth and powerful lecture by Prof. Patnaik which in all its wisdom analyzed the constructs of majority and minority in India in all its nuances. He dealt with the question of majoritarianism and the concern of its undermining democracy at multiple levels in all its complexities. This analysis of the economic root of majoritarianism in a time where the deteriorating Indian economy is impoverishing millions was well appreciated. His solutions to counter the threat of majoritarianism were innovative and promote the democratic agenda for a better India. The Lecture was very inspiring, invigorating and encouraging for the organizers as well as the audience. Dr. Asghar Ali Engineer Memorial Lectures have been delivered in the past by eminent scholars including Romila Thapar, Christophe Jaffrelot, Akeel Bilgrami and Sukhdeo Thorat.

The post Majoritarianism doesn’t enhance rights or material benefits of majority community: Prabhat Patnaik appeared first on SabrangIndia.

We have the verdict of India’s 17th General Elections with us, where the right-wing government led by the Bharatiya Janata Party has retained power and has done so with a greater majority than its victory in 2014. Terrifying as this moment is, it demands that we make sense of it, understand its roots and implications, and prepare to mount a fight against it. To begin with, right wing populism has been on a sharp rise across the world. From Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, to Donald Trump in the US to Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines- we are witnessing the deepening of majoritarianism with free market capitalism globally.

While the contexts and specificities of this rise of the right obviously differ, there are some strong linkages among them. I would focus on one that had already been an urgent concern in the last five years: the ties with Israel. With each passing year, Israel further entrenches its occupation, apartheid and settler-colonial regime over Palestinians. In April, Benjamin Netanyahu was re-elected as the Prime Minister of Israel, holding this position since 2009, and previously from 1996-99. Fearing that his popularity is waning, Netanyahu’s recent election campaign included allying with the ultra-right-wing group, Otzma Yehudit, promises of annexing illegal settlements in the West Bank and pre-election attacks on Gaza.

In the recently concluded elections, Netanyahu’s main opponent was the former chief of Israeli Occupying Forces, Benny Gantz, who launched his campaign with the call to send “parts of Gaza back to the Stone Age”. He found support among left and liberal political quarters of Israel. The last year also saw close to 300 people being killed in Gaza, non-violent protesters demanding their fundamental right of refugees to return to their homes. The Israeli Knesset passed the Jewish nation-state law, conveying constitutional status to Israel’s apartheid regime. For Palestinians, each Israeli government has been as brutal, vicious and built on impunity as the other.

For decades, Israel has been riding on the support and aid granted to it by Europe and the United States. Israel is held out as the bastion of imperialist control in the Arab region, and therefore the ready protection offered to it by Europe and the US in the face of mounting war crimes and violations of international law. But with the changing global order of right-wing populism, this too is changing. Israel’s new-found friends are precisely the authoritarians listed above — Bolsonaro, Trump, Modi and Duterte. Israel sustains itself on ties of complicity — from military to trade. And the rise of right-wing governments has precisely bolstered these, at the cost of Palestinian human rights.

The previous Modi regime saw an unprecedented and brazen support for Israel — something that existed but at a lower scale and covertly until then. In July 2017, Modi became the first Prime Minister of India to visit Israel, Netanyahu visited India six months later. Under this regime trade relations between India and Israel grew remarkably, India’s film industry was roped in for Israel’s PR through a government to government agreement, and most crucially, India bought almost 50% of Israel’s weapons exports in the period from 2013-2017. These weapons are sold by Israel as ‘field-tested’, for they have been used to kill and maim Palestinians- obviously the best way to sell weapons from Israel’s perspective. These weapons are then used to crush political struggles in India. Along with its weapons, Israel also sells its methodology of asymmetrical violence and surveillance.

These ties are set to intensify in the second term of Modi government. Already, Netanyahu’s has conveyed his best wishes to his “friend’”for his victory, joking about how he needs a coalition unlike Modi:

Shortly before the elections in India, tensions flared between the India and Pakistan- both armed with nuclear power. Such a scenario would demand restraint, but true to its character, BJP leader and supporters went on an overdrive of warmongering. The bombs that India dropped in Balakot, Pakistan were of Israeli make. Amit Shah, the national president of the BJP valourised India’s attack in Balakot in his election rallies, saying India was only after Israel and US in hitting targets in foreign soil. BJP’s seduction for being like Israel is rooted in its Hindutva ideology, which is coterminous with Zionism in its supremacist zeal.

The cost of India becoming like Israel is to be paid by Palestinians, as each weapon bought from Israel entrenches their occupation; each time Indian government supports Israeli agrobusiness, which indebts and pulls our farmers into the trappings of corporate farming models, it legitimises the agents of Israel’s settler colonialism; each time Bollywood ties up with Israel, or cultural and academic ties with Israel are fostered, the apartheid against Palestinians is whitewashed. Simultaneously, deepening ties with Israel, as they are bound to be under the BJP-led NDA government, take us more in the direction of being governed by a paranoid, anti-minority and warmongering state.

As we gather our strengths to mount a people’s struggle against this regime, we have to do in intersectional alliances with people struggling against right wing regimes everywhere. It is not wise to be isolated in our movement when are oppressors are so united. The Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement calls upon us to end ties with Israel until it respects international law and Palestinian human rights. Our battles for democracy in the coming years will only be richer and stronger when we join the Palestinian call for BDS. Until 1992, Indians could not get a visa to travel to apartheid South Africa and Israel. However symbolic, this was a mark of abiding solidarity to Palestinians and South Africans fighting apartheid. And further, this was testimony to the unshakeable precedence of human rights over diplomatic relations. As we organise and dream anew, let’s work towards this point, where justice, dignity and equality for everyone is the rallying cry.

Courtesy: Indian Cultural Forum

The post Israel and Hindutva 2.0: Building Resistance through Joint Struggles appeared first on SabrangIndia.

(To be published in the special issue of ‘Janata’)
 

The spectacle of what is called religion, or at any rate organised religion, in India and elsewhere, has filled me with horror and I have frequently condemned it and wished to make a clean sweep of it. Almost always it seemed to stand for blind belief and reaction, dogma and bigotry, superstition, exploitation and the preservation of vested interests.
– Toward Freedom: The Autobiography of Jawaharlal Nehru (1936), pp. 240–241.
If Hindu Raj does become a fact, it will no doubt, be the greatest calamity for this country. No matter what the Hindus say, Hinduism is a menace to liberty, equality and fraternity. On that account it is incompatible with democracy. Hindu Raj must be prevented at any cost.
– Ambedkar, ‘Pakistan or Partition of India’, p. 358.

Introduction
India’s slow ushering into a majoritarian democracy is a matter of concern for every such individual who still believes in pluralism, democracy, equality and a clear separation of religion and politics. The way people are being hounded for raising dissenting opinions, for eating food of their choice or entering into relationships of their own liking or celebrating festivals according to their own faith is unprecedented. The situation has reached such extremes that one can even be publicly lynched for belonging to one of the minority religions or for engaging in an activity which is considered to be ‘suspicious’ by the majority community.

No doubt there is no direct harm to the basic structure of the Constitution, its formal structure remains intact, de jure India does remain a democracy as well as a republic, but de facto democracy has slowly metamorphosed into majoritarianism and the sine qua non of a republic—that its citizens are supreme—is being watered down fast. It does not need underlining that this process has received tremendous boost with the ascent of Hindutva supremacist forces at the centrestage of Indian politics.

The brazen manner in which a Union cabinet minister—who has taken oath to abide by the Constitution—declared in public that they have come to power to ‘çhange the constitution’ and the manner in which ruling party members preferred to remain silent about it can be seen as a sign of the crisis facing Indian society. Perhaps less said the better about the man who calls Constitution ‘the most sacred book’ and who loves to project himself as a disciple of Dr Ambedkar.

A sobering fact at this juncture is to remember that leading lights of the movement for political and social emancipation—which unfolded itself under British rule—definitely had a premonition of things to come and had rightly cautioned / underlined / warned the people of the bleak future which awaits them if they do not remain vigilant. As Patel’s biographer Rajmohan Gandhi points out:

Mahatma Gandhi, Nehru and Patel formed a crucial trimuvirate that agreed that independent India would not be a Hindu Rashtra but one that offered equal rights to all. After Gandhi’s departure and until Patel’s death, Patel and Nehru differend on several matters but not on some fundamentals. With the help of others including Ambedkar, Maulana Azad, Rajendra Prasad and Rajaji, they entrenched secularism and equality in the Constitution.[i]

An inkling of the collective thinking among them is evident if one looks at the Objectives Resolution moved in the Constituent Assembly by Pandit Nehru on 13 December 1946 and adopted unanimously by the Constituent Assembly on 22 January 1947. It declared its firm resolve not only to make India an independent sovereign republic but also to guarantee and secure for all the people of India
 

social, economic and political justice; equality of status and  opportunities and equality before law; and fundamental freedoms—of speech,  expression, belief, faith, worship, vocation, association and action—subject to law and public morality;

and also ensure that
 

adequate safeguards shall be provided for minorities, backward and tribal areas, and depressed and other backward classes.

The key importance of the Objectives Resolution (which was then called / moved as ‘Resolution on the Aims and Objects of the Constitution’) can be gauged from the fact that according to the Drafting Committee of the Constitution, it was the basis of the ‘Preamble of the Constitution’. The Chairman of the Drafting Committee was Dr B.R. Ambedkar, who was appointed to this post at the suggestion of Mahatma Gandhi possibly due to his scholarship in legal and constitutional matters.

One can take a look at the way Gandhi’s last struggle—the way he undertook fast unto death to stop the communal riots in 1947—unfolded itself, or the way Jawaharlal Nehru cautioned people about the possibility of India turning into a ‘Hindu Pakistan’[ii] or the way he led the fight against danger of majoritarianism within the Congress itself. Describing communalism as an ‘Indian version of fascism’, Pandit Nehru said in 1947 that the tide of the fascism gripping the country was the direct consequence of the hate speeches given against non-Muslims by the Muslim League and its supporters.[iii]
On the occasion of Mahatma Gandhi’s birth anniversary in 1951, Nehru said that if a person attacks another on the issue of religions, he will fight against that person till the end of his life both in his  capacity of being the head of the government and as a true Indian. He advocated a ban on organizations based on religion and enpowered the government by getting the Constitution amended to exercise restraining power to suppress communal writings and communally provocative speeches.[iv]

One can look at his correspondence with chief ministers on various occasions or his instructions or his speeches in Parliament to know how he debunked ideas of special ‘protection for the majority’:
 

If I may venture to lay down a rule, it is the primary responsibility of the majority to satisfy the minority in every matter. The majority, by virtue of it being a majority, has the strength to have its way: it requires no protection.[v]

Patel, the ‘Iron Man of India’, had declared in the Jaipur Session of the party that the Congress was dedicated to upholding secularism at any cost: ‘India is a true secular country’. He described the talk of ‘Hindu Rajya as an act of insanity’ in 1949.[vi]
That day Delhi caught Punjab’s infection. ‘I will not tolerate Delhi becoming another Lahore’, Vallabhbhai declared in Nehru’s and Mountbatten’s presence. He publicly threatened partisan officials with punishment, and at his instructions orders to shoot rioters at sight were issued on September 7. Four Hindu rioters were shot dead at the railway station in Old Delhi.[vii]

In a speech in Madras (1949), he underlined how apart from other challenges before the nation the government was dealing with the ‘RSS movement’:
 

We in the government have been dealing with the RSS movement. They want that Hindu Rajya or Hindu culture should be imposed by force. No government can tolerate this. There are almost as many Muslims in this country as in the part that has been partitioned away. We are not going to drive them away. It would be an evil day if we started that game, in spite of partition and whatever happens. We must understand that they are going to stay here and it is our obligation and our responsibility to make them feel that this is their country.[viii]

Perhaps foreseeing that attempts would be made by interested quarters to drive a wedge between him and Nehru, he categorically stated in Indore on 2 October 1950, just three months before his death:
 

Our leader is Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. Bapu appointed him his heir and successor during his lifetime and even declared it. It is the duty of the soldiers of Bapu that they abide by his orders. One who does not accept this order by heart would prove a sinner before god. I am not a disloyal soldier. For me it is unimportant what my place is. I only know that I am at that very place where Bapu asked me to stand.[ix]

In the following writeup we do not intend to deal further with the role played by the likes of Nehru, Patel or other leaders in giving a shape to the emergent republic. Our focus is rather limited. We focus attention in this article on how Dr Ambedkar perceived of a future roadmap for India, his perception of the dangers of a ‘Hindu India’ or the possibility of a ‘majoritarian rule’ emerging here.

It is a rather neglected theme because under pressures of political exigency, discussion is usually restricted to one or the other aspect of Dr Ambedkar’s life and struggle, and his overall vision does not get the attention it deserves.  The urgency of this intervention is because while the Hindutva Right is  overenthusiastically appropriating Ambedkar for its cause, the response from the seculars as well as the left is less than expected.

A close look at the last decade of Ambedkar’s eventful life (1946-56) can help us discern various threads in his worldview or vision of a new India.

I
The making of the Constitution itself was marked by pressures and counterpressures—from believers of radical change to the status quoists—and what came out can at best be called a compromise document between various contending forces and ideas. Dr Ambedkar’s separation between the beginning of political democracy in India with the advent of the one-man-one-vote regime, and the long hiatus he saw before the ushering in of social democracy—the regime of one-man-one-value—while dedicating the Constitution to the nation was in fact a reminder of the fact that the struggle was still not over.
Without doubt he was the chief architect of the Constitution, and it was his interventions—of course with due support from Nehru and others—that led to the inclusion of important pro-people or pro-dispriviledged provisions into it, but we should not be under any illusion that ‘his vision’ ultimately  triumphed and was inscribed in the Constitution.

Ambedkar in fact was very aware of the limitations of such a constitutional exercise in a backward society like ours:
 

Indians today are governed by two ideologies. Their political ideal set in the preamble of the Constitution affirms a life of liberty, equality and fraternity, whereas their social ideal embedded in their religion denies it to them.[x]

His ‘vision’ about a future India can be discerned from his less discussed monograph, States and Minorities: What are Their Rights and How to Secure them in the Constitution of Free India which was basically a memorandum on the safeguards for the Scheduled Castes that was submitted to the Constituent Assembly on behalf of the All India Scheduled Castes Federation that he led. This monograph does not limit itself to ‘safeguards’ but also talks of the danger of majoritarianism, incompatibility of Hinduism with any change, and also proposes a model of economic development that he himself described as ‘state socialism’.
It is a monograph that would be quite enlightening for many of us. In it, he envisaged that the ‘state shall not recognise any religion as state religion’ and ‘guarantee to every citizen liberty of conscience’. Simultaneously, on the aspect of protection against economic exploitation, he not only declared that ‘key industries shall be owned and run by the state’, but also that non-key but basic industries shall also ‘be owned by the state and run by the state’. He was of the opinion that ‘agriculture shall be state industry’,  where ‘the state shall divide the land acquired into farms of standard size’; the ‘farm shall be cultivated as a collective farm . . . in accordance with rules and directions issued by the government’; and the ‘tenants shall share among themselves in the manner prescribed the produce of the farm left after the payment of charges properly leviable on the farm’.

He further explains this clause in the following words:
 

The main purpose behind the clause is to put an obligation on the state to plan the economic life of the people on lines which would lead to highest point of productivity without closing every avenue to private enterprise, and also provide for the equitable distribution of wealth. The plan set out in the clause proposes state ownership in agriculture with a collectivised method of cultivation and a modified form of State Socialism in the field of industry. . . . State Socialism is essential for the rapid industrialisation of India. Private enterprise cannot do it and if it did it would produce those inequalities of wealth which private capitalism has produced in Europe and which should be a warning to Indians. Consolidation of Holdings and Tenancy legislation are worse than useless.[xi]

Interestingly, he does not propose that the idea of State Socialism should be left to legislatures and instead wants it to be implemented by Constitutional law:
 

The plan has two special features. One is that it proposes State Socialism in important fields of economic life. The second special feature of the plan is that it does not leave the establishment of State Socialism to the will of the Legislature. It establishes State Socialism by the Law of the Constitution and thus makes it unalterable by any act of the Legislature and the Executive.

II.
In the same monograph he clearly differentiates between ‘Untouchables’ and ‘Hindus’.

Gone were the days when he felt that Hinduism would reform itself from within. More than a decade had passed since his famous declaration at the Yeola conference that ‘I was born as a Hindu but I will not die as a Hindu’.

He is unequivocal about the ‘Hindu population which is hostile to them (Untouchables)’ and emphasises that it is ‘not ashamed of committing any inequity or atrocity against them’. He is also not hopeful about their situation under Swaraj:
 

What can Swaraj mean to the Untouchables ? It can only mean one thing, namely, that while today it is only the administration that is in the hands of the Hindus, under Swaraj the Legislature and Executive will also be in the hands of the Hindus, it goes without saying that such a Swaraj would aggravate the sufferings of the Untouchables. For, in addition to an hostile administration, there will be an indifferent Legislature and a callous Executive. The result will be that the administration unbridled in venom and in harshness, uncontrolled by the Legislature and the Executive, may pursue its policy of inequity towards the Untouchables without any curb. To put it differently, under Swaraj the Untouchables will have no way of escape from the destiny of degradation which Hindus and Hinduism have fixed for them.[xii]

He was very much aware about the dangers of majoritarianism implicit in the way Indian nationalism had developed which according to him had
 

developed a new doctrine which may be called the Divine Right of the Majority to rule the minorities according to the wishes of the majority. Any claim for the sharing of power by the minority is called communalism while the monopolising of the whole power by the majority is called Nationalism.[xiii]

And so, to protect the rights of the minorities (remember that he does not restrict himself here to religious minorities but also includes the ‘scheduled castes’ in his definition) he proposes a form of Executive which could serve following purposes:
 

(i) To prevent the majority from forming a Government without giving any opportunity to the minorities to have a say in the matter.
(ii) To prevent the majority from having exclusive control over administration and thereby make the tyranny of the minority by the majority possible.
(iii) To prevent the inclusion by the Majority Party in the Executive representatives of the minorities who have no confidence of the minorities.
(iv) To provide a stable Executive necessary for good and efficient administration.

In fact, his fears vis-a-vis the majoriatarian impulses were evident in the political manifesto of the Scheduled Castes Federation itself—the political organisation that was set up by him in 1942 which rejected the RSS and Hindu Mahasabha as ‘reactionary’ organisations:
 

The Scheduled Castes Federation will not have any alliance with any reactionary party such as the Hindu Mahasabha or the RSS.[xiv]

Anyone who has studied the making of the Indian constitution would tell us why Ambedkar considered the RSS and Hindu Mahasabha as ‘reactionary’ parties. History is witness to the fact that they opposed its making and suggested in their organs that instead of a new Constitution, the newly independent nation should adopt Manusmriti. A laughable suggestion today, but the fact is it was then seriously raised by its proponents:
 

The worst (thing) about the new Constitution of Bharat is that there is nothing Bharatiya about it. . . . there is no trace of ancient Bharatiya constitutional laws, institutions, nomenclature and phraseology in it. . . . no mention of the unique constitutional developments in ancient Bharat. Manu’s laws were written long before Lycurgus of Sparta or Solon of Persia. To this day his laws as enunciated in the Manusmriti excite the admiration of the world and elicit spontaneous obedience and conformity (among Hindus in India). But to our constitutional pundits that means nothing.[xv]

In his monograph ‘Pakistan or Partition of India’ he reiterates his fears vis-a-vis the possible majoritarian turn at the hands of those who vouched for ‘Hindu Raj’:
 

If Hindu Raj does become a fact, it will no doubt be the greatest calamity for this country. No matter what the Hindus say, Hinduism is a menace to liberty, equality and fraternity. On that account it is incompatible with democracy. Hindu Raj must be prevented at any cost.[xvi]

III.
Much on the lines of lack of debate / discussion around States and Minorities, another important intervention of Ambedkar during that period has also received little attention. It was related to the struggle for Hindu Code Bill and happened to be the first attempt in independent India to reform Hindu personal laws to give greater rights to Hindu women. Through this, his attempt was to put a stamp on monogamy, also ensure separation rights for women and also grant them rights in property. We know very well that it was a key reason for Ambedkar’s resignation from Nehru’s Cabinet because he felt that despite lot of attempts not much headway was being made in granting these rights. In his resignation letter he underlined the importance he attached to the bill
 

To leave inequality between class and class, between sex and sex, which is the soul of Hindu society, untouched and to go on passing legislation relating to economic problems is to make a farce of our Constitution and to build a palace on a dung heap. This is the significance I attached to the Hindu Code.[xvii]

How the Hindutva right and the conservative sections within the Congress coupled with the saffron-robed swamis and sadhus joined hands to oppose the enactment of Hindu Code Bill is well-known history. In fact, this motley combination of reactionary and status quoist forces did not limit themselves to issuing statements. They also opposed the bill on the streets and led large scale mobilisation at pan India level against the bill. There were occasions when they even tried to storm Dr Ambedkar’s residence in Delhi.

Their main argument against Ambedkar was that the bill was an attack on ‘Hindu Religion and Culture’. The enormous resistance to this bill becomes clear from this excerpt from Ramchandra Guha’s book:

The anti-Hindu code bill committee held hundreds of meetings throughout India, where sundry swamis denounced the proposed legislation. The participants in this movement presented themselves as religious warriors (dharmaveer) fighting a religious war (dharmayudh). The Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh threw its weight behind the agitation. On the 11th of December, 1949, the RSS organised a public meeting at the Ramlila grounds in Delhi, where speaker after speaker condemned the bill. One called it ‘an atom bomb on Hindu society’ . . . The next day a group of RSS workers marched on the assembly buildings, shouting ‘Down with Hindu code bill’ . . . The protesters burnt effigies of the prime minister and Dr Ambedkar, and then vandalised the car of Sheikh Abdullah.[xviii]

Shyama Prasad Mookerjee, founder of BJP’s predecessor, the Bharatiya Jan Sangh, declared that the Bill would ‘shatter the magnificent structure of Hindu culture’.[xix]

In his intervention in support of Ambedkar and the Hindu Code Bill during the debate in Parliament on this bill, Acharya Kriplani stated:
 

Much has been said about Hindu religion being in danger. I am afraid I cannot see the point. Hindu religion is not in danger when Hindus are thieves, rogues, fornicators, black-marketers or takers of bribes! Hindu religion is not endangered by these people but Hindu religion is endangered by people who want to reform a particular law! May be they are over-zealous but it is better to be over-zealous in things idealistic than be corrupt in material things.[xx]

In fact, like Mahatma Phule—whom he called the ‘Greatest Shudra’ and considered him his teacher along with Buddha and Kabir—the concern for women’s emancipation always existed in the movement led by Ambedkar.

IV.
How did he envisage the idea of democracy ?

Perhaps his speech on the ‘Voice of America’ radio (20 May 1956) which he gave few months before his death could best summarise his ideas around this concept.

The first point which he makes is that ‘Democracy is quite different from a Republic as well as from Parliamentary Government.’ According to him:
 

The roots of democracy lie not in the form of government, Parliamentary or otherwise. A democracy is more than a form of government. It is primarily a mode of associated living. The roots of democracy are to be searched in the social relationship, in the terms of associated life between the people who form a society.[xxi]

He then goes on to explain the meaning of the word ‘society’.  He says:
 

When we speak of ‘Society,’ we conceive of it as one by its very nature. The qualities which accompany this unity are praiseworthy community of purpose and desire for welfare, loyalty to public ends and mutuality of sympathy and co-operation.

Examining Indian society, he questions whether ‘these ideals are found in Indian society?’ He says that Indian society is nothing but ‘an innumerable collection of castes which are exclusive in their life and have no common experience to share and have no bond of sympathy’, and concludes that:
 

The existence of the caste system is a standing denial of the existence of those ideals of society and therefore of democracy.[xxii]

He goes on to say that ‘Indian society is so embedded in the caste system that everything is organised on the basis of caste’. He shares examples of how the daily life of individuals revolves around the twin concepts of purity and pollution, then discusses how caste is prevalent in the social–political arena too, and wryly concludes that ‘there is no room for the downtrodden and the outcastes in politics, in industry, in commerce and in education.’

Further he discusses other special features of the caste system which ‘have their evil effects and which militate against democracy’. He particularly discusses the feature of ‘Graded Inequality’ wherein ‘castes are not equal in their status’ but rather ‘are standing one above another’ and form ‘an ascending scale of hatred and descending scale of contempt’ which has the most pernicious consequences as ‘it destroys willing and helpful co-operation.’

Deliberating about the difference between caste and class, he takes up the second evil effect in the caste system which is ‘complete isolation’ which is not there in the class system. This manifests itself in the fact that ‘the stimulus and response between two castes is only one-sided. The higher caste act in one recognised way and the lower caste must respond in one established way.’ Such influences ‘educate some into masters, educate others into slaves. . . . It results into a separation of society, into a privileged and a subject class. Such a separation prevents social endosmosis.’

The third characteristic of the caste system, that ‘cuts at the very roots of democracy’, is that ‘one caste is bound to one occupation.’ Ambedkar says ‘there is in a man an indefinite plurality of capacities and activities. A society to be democratic should open a way to use all the capacities of the individual.’ However, this binding of the individual to one occupation leads to stratification which stunts ‘the growth of the individual and deliberate stunting is a deliberate denial of democracy.’

In the concluding part of his speech, Ambedkar discusses obstacles in the way to end caste system. He says that the first obstacle is ‘the system of graded inequality which is the soul of the caste system.’ The second obstacle is that ‘Indian society is disabled by unity in action by not being able to know what is its common good. . . . Every where ‘the mind of the Indians is distracted and misled by false valuations and false perspectives.’ He ends his speech by emphasising that mere education cannot destroy the caste system: ‘If you give education to those strata of Indian Society which has a vested interest in maintaining the caste system for the advantages it gives them, then the caste system will be strengthened. On the other hand, if you give education to the lowest strata of Indian society which is interested in blowing up the caste system, the caste system will be blown up.’ And so he concludes: ‘To give education to  those who want to keep up the caste system is not to improve the prospect of democracy in India but to put our democracy in India in greater jeopardy.’[xxiii]

As opposed to the conservative notions about democracy that consider it to be an instrument to stop bad people from seizing power,  Ambedkar considered democracy to be related to social transformation and human progress. He defined democracy as “a form and a method of government whereby revolutionary changes in the economic and social life of the people are brought about without bloodshed.”[xxiv] The conditions for that are as follows:
 

(1) There should not be glaring inequalities in society, that is, privilege for one class; (2) The existence of an opposition; (3) Equality in law and administration; (4) Observance of constitutional morality; (5) No tyranny of the majority; (6) Moral order of society: and (7) Public conscience.”[xxv]

In his speech to the Constituent Assembly on November 25, 1949 he expressed three cautions and believed that paying heed to them was critical to ensure that our democratic institutions did not get subverted:
 

(i) Constitutional methods; (ii) Not to lay liberties at the feet of a great man; (iii) Make a political democracy a social democracy.[xxvi]

For Ambedkar, democracy and secularism are inseparable. Looking at the fact that India happens to be a multi-denominational society where the common denominator could be secularism which is understood as one of the pillars on which the superstructure of our democracy rests and is a unifying force of our associated life, he emphasised :
 

The conception of a secular state is derived from the liberal democratic tradition of the West. No institution which is maintained wholly out of state funds shall be used for the purpose of religious instruction irrespective of the question whether the religious instruction is given by the state or by any other body.[xxvii]

In a debate in Parliament, he underlined:
 

It (secular state) does not mean that we shall not take into consideration the religious sentiments of the people. All that a secular state means is that this Parliament shall not be competent to impose any particular religion upon the rest of the people. This is the only limitation that the Constitution recognises.[xxviii]

At the same time, he emphatically states that it is the duty of the state to ensure that the minority does not become victim of the tyranny of the majority:
 

The State should guarantee to its citizens the liberty of conscience and the free exercise of his religion including the right to profess, to preach and to convert within limits compatible with public order and morality.[xxix]

In an insightful article, Prof Jean Dreze argues that ‘Ambedkar’s passion for democracy was closely related to his commitment to rationality and the scientific outlook.’ Jean Dreaze elaborates the connnection. Rationality is necessary for democratic government since public debate (an essential aspect of democratic practice) is impossible in the absence of a shared adherence to common sense, logical argument and critical enquiry. And, scientific spirit is inherently anti-authoritarian, as a person then does not believe in authority, but in coherence of the argument and quality of the evidence. Dreze goes on to argue that Ambedkar shared this belief. This is evident from one of Ambedkar’s last speeches, ‘Buddha or Karl Marx’, wherein he summarises the essential teachings of Buddha as follows:
 

Everyone has a right to learn. Learning is as necessary for man to live as food is. . . . Nothing is infallible. Nothing is binding forever. Everything is subject to inquiry and examination.[xxx]

Jean Dreze says that it is important to bring forth this relationship between democracy and rationalism / scientific outlook because of the ‘recent threats to Indian democracy (which) often involve a concerted attack on rationality and the scientific spirit.’ (Ibid.)

V .
 

I will accept and follow the teachings of Buddha. I will keep my people away from the different opinions of Hinyan and Mahayan, two religious orders. Our Bouddha Dhamma is a new Bouddha Dhamma, Navayan.[xxxi]

An important development in the last decade of Ambedkar’s life was his decision to embrace Buddhism with lakhs of followers. Apart from his deep fascination for Buddhism from younger days, his conversion to Buddhism had also to do with his contention that the ‘untouchables’ were in fact former Buddhists. He elaborates it in his book The Untouchables: A Thesis on the Origin of Untouchability (1948).[xxxii] Thus it could also be said to be a return to ‘their’ original religion than a conversion. Interestingly one finds deep commonality between Dr Ambedkar and Jyothee Thass, the great Tamil-Buddhist Scholar, who also maintained that ‘Untouchables’ were early Buddhists.

His ‘conversion’ to Buddhism was also renouncement of Hinduism which according to him had
 

proved detrimental to progress and prosperity of my predecessors and which has regarded human beings as unequal and despicable.[xxxiii]

If one refers to the 22 pledges he administered to his followers on the occasion then one can broadly categorise them into four parts: complete rejection of Hindu gods (for example, I will not accept Brahma,Vishnu and Mahesh as Gods) and their worship and the related rituals (I will not perform Shraddha Paksh or Pind Dana, rituals to respect the dead); acceptance of the principles and teachings of Buddhism; declaration that ‘all human beings are equal’; and ‘no faith in divine incarnation’.

An important aspect of this ‘return’ or ‘conversion’ is the fact that it was also a reinterpretation of Buddhism which he described as Navayan—a new vehicle. Apart from a big monograph Buddha and His Dhamma where he tries to revisit Buddhism, one can get a glimpse of his reading of the Buddha and his teachings from the speech he delivered in Kathmandu merely a fortnight before his death which was posthumously published as Buddha Or Karl Marx.

Summarising the ‘Creed of Buddhism’, while on the one hand he underlines the necessity of ‘religion for a free society’, at the same time, he says many things which would be rather unacceptable to a scholar or follower of religion because he appears to reject the ‘necessity of God’ as well as Shastras and rituals. Thus for instance, he says:
 

• Religion must relate to facts of life and not to theories and speculations about God, or Soul or Heaven or Earth.
• It is wrong to make God the centre of Religion.
• It is wrong to make salvation of the soul as the centre of Religion.
• It is wrong to make animal sacrifices to be the centre of Religion.
• Real Religion lives in the heart of man and not in the Shastras.
• Man and morality must be the centre of religion. If not, Religion is a cruel superstition.
• It is not enough for Morality to be the ideal of life. Since there is no God it must become the law of life.[xxxiv]

Ambedkar differentiates himself from popular definitions of religion first by criticising the way religions have tried to explain the origin and the end of world and says that its ‘function is to to reconstruct the world and to make it happy’. He then goes on to explore the source of unhappiness, and does not talk about ‘sins’ or ‘otherworldly affairs’ but says that ‘unhappiness in the world is due to conflict of interest and the only way to solve it is to follow the Ashtanga Marga.’ Further elaborating on the ‘Creed of Buddhism’, he says that ‘private ownership of property brings power to one class and sorrow to another’ and ‘it is necessary for the good of Society that this sorrow be removed by removing its cause.’ While religions the world over have remained the basis of ‘othering’—which in extreme cases have resulted in genocides too—Buddhism as perceived by Ambedkar believes that ‘all human beings are equal’ and ‘worth and not birth is the measure of man’.

While supporting ‘war for truth and justice’ and also emphasising that the ‘victor has duties towards the vanquished’ in the last part of his summary of the ‘Creed of Buddhism’, he not only challenges the monopoly of a few over learning but also emphatically states: ‘Nothing is permanent or sanatan. Everything is subject to change. Being is always becoming.’

This speech—as the title shows—also throws light on his views about Marxism. Of course it is not for the first time that he had expressed his views on the theme. In his famous booklet Annihilation of Caste he had already made it clear that while he appreciates the goal of Marxism, he is repelled by its Indian practioners. In this speech too, he declares that ‘Buddha is not away from Marx’ if ‘for misery one reads exploitation.’

For him non-violence is not an issue of principle: ‘The Buddha was against violence. But he was also in favour of justice and where justice required he permitted the use of force.’ Ambedkar further writes that:
 

Violence cannot be altogether dispensed with. Even in non-communist countries a murderer is hanged. Does not hanging amount to violence? Non-communist countries go to war with non-communist countries. Millions of people are killed. Is this no violence? If a murderer can be killed, because he has killed a citizen, if a soldier can be killed in war because he belongs to a hostile nation, why cannot a property owner be killed if his ownership leads to misery for the rest of humanity? There is no reason to make an exception in favour of the property owner, why one should regard private property as sacrosanct.

He goes on to assert that even Buddha established communism:
 

The Russians are proud of their communism. But they forget that the wonder of all wonders is that the Buddha established communism so far as the Sangh was concerned without dictatorship. It may be that it was a communism on a very small scale but it was communism without dictatorship, a miracle which Lenin failed to do.

Of course, he underlines that:
 

The Buddha’s method was different. His method was to change the mind of man, to alter his disposition, so that whatever man does, he does it voluntarily without the use of force or compulsion.

The concluding remarks he makes while ending his speech seem to validate, in Anand Teltumbde’s words, ‘his decision as confirming to Marxism, minus violence and dictatorship in the latter.’[xxxv]
 

It has been claimed that the Communist Dictatorship in Russia has wonderful achievements to its credit. There can be no denial of it. That is why I say that a Russian Dictatorship would be good for all backward countries. But this is no argument for permanent Dictatorship. . . .
We welcome the Russian Revolution because it aims to produce equality. But it cannot be too much emphasised that in producing equality society cannot afford to sacrifice fraternity or liberty. Equality will be of no value without fraternity or liberty. It seems that the three can coexist only if one follows the way of the Buddha. Communism can give one but not all.[xxxvi]

 
VII.
These are no ordinary times to discuss the future of our republic.

We have before us an India where (to quote Prof Achin Vanaik):

The centre of gravity has shifted perhaps decisively to the right, in three crucial spheres: economy, secularism and democracy.

It is an India where the political dispensation at the centre is busy furthering the exclusivist/majoritarian worldview of Hindutva supremacism coupled with the neoliberal agenda under the glib talk of development and a concerted attack has been unleashed on (what Ambedkar defined as) minorities of various kinds and other deprived sections.

What can then be the contours of Dr Ambedkar’s Vision for our times?

It will necessarily have to be: ensure that the ‘state shall not recognise any religion as state religion’ and ‘guarantee to every citizen liberty of conscience’; stand against ‘majoritarianism of every kind’ and, more specifically, prevent the majority from forming a government without giving any opportunity to the minorities to have a say in the matter; stand up for women’s emancipation, for state ownership in agriculture with a collectivised method of cultivation and a modified form of State Socialism in the field of industry; stand against inequalities of wealth which private capitalism produces. It will necessarily have to be for annihilation of caste as ‘the existence of the Caste System is a standing denial of the existence of ideals of society and therefore of Democracy.’[xxxvii] It will be for reason and rationality and scientific temper and not for dumbing of minds.

It does not need reminding that it will not be based on sanitisation or vulgarisation of Dr Ambedkar in any form as is being experimented with these days. While his appropriation by the Hindutva Right and its attempts to carve out a ‘suitable’ Ambedkar for its project based on exclusion and hatred has been widely commented upon and exposed, much needs to be done to expose the projection of Ambedkar as a free market economist.[xxxviii] Scholarly sounding pieces have appeared based on selective quotes from his vast corpus of writings to project him as a ‘Free Market Economist”.[xxxix] In contrast to Ambedkar’s views, there are also articles valorising capitalism for supposedly annihilating of caste.[xl] This latter article by a noted columnist and an upcoming industrialist from the oppressed communities argues that:
 

Capital is the surest means to fight caste. In Dalit’s hands, capital becomes an anti-caste weapon; little wonder that the traditional caste code prohibits dalits from accumulating wealth. Dalit capitalism is the answer to that regime of discrimination. The manifesto demands promotion of dalit capitalism through a variety of means-procurement, credit options and partnerships.

Last but not the least one will have to be wary of ‘hero worship’ or laying ‘liberties at the feet of a great man’ as it can culminate in ‘subverting of institutions’ in a democracy as Ambedkar has warned us. In fact he had this to say while dedicating the Constitution to the nation:
This caution is far more necessary in the case of India than in the case of any other country. For in India, Bhakti or what may be called the path of devotion or hero-worship, plays a part in its politics unequalled in magnitude by the part it plays in the politics of any other country in the world. Bhakti in religion may be a road to the salvation of the soul. But in politics, Bhakti or hero-worship is a sure road to degradation and to eventual dictatorship.[xli]

Everybody can see that this caution has contemporary import. No month passes when some responsible member of the ruling dispensation compares the honourable PM to God or as ‘God’s gift to India’.

While Bhakts can rejoice about this unique gift to India, every sensible person would agree that if this trend is allowed to continue then it is a ‘sure road to degradation and eventual dictatorship.’

References:
[i]
Seema Chisti, “The Disputed Legacy of Vallabhbhai Patel”, October 30, 2013, http://indianexpress.com.
[ii]      Cited in: Krishna Kumar, “Battle for Peace”, https://books.google.co.in.
[iii]     C.N. Chitta Ranjan, “Remembering Jawaharlal Today”, Mainstream, May 28, 2016, http://www.mainstreamweekly.net.
[iv]    “Pt. Nehru Stems the Tide of Communalism”, June 22, 2016, https://www.inc.in.
[v]     Jawaharlal Nehru, Lok Sabha speech in 1955, “Jawaharlal Nehru’s Speeches, Vol. 3 (1953-1957)”,  Publications Division, https://books.google.co.in.
[vi]    “Pt. Nehru Stems the Tide of Communalism”, June 22, 2016, https://www.inc.in.
[vii]   Rajmohan Gandhi, Patel : A Life, Navjeevan Publishing House, Ahmedabad, p. 428
[viii]  Excerpts from Sardar Patel’s address in Madras, 1949, taken from: S. Irfan Habib (ed.), Indian Nationalism: The Essential Writings, Aleph Book Company; see: Book Extract, “Sardar Patel on RSS and the perils of imposing Hindu Rajya”, https://www.dailyo.in.
[ix]    Translated from: Pyarelal, Purnahuti, Chaturth Khand, Navjeevan Prakashan, Ahmedabad, p. 465.
[x]     Dhananjay Keer, Ambedkar : Life and Mission, Popular Prakashan, Mumbai, 1990, p. 456.
[xi]    B.R. Ambedkar, States and Minorities, Appendices, Appendix I: Explanatory Notes, http://www.ambedkar.org.
[xii]   Ibid.
[xiii]  Ibid.
[xiv]  “Rejected as ‘Reactionary’ by Dalit Icon, RSS Eyes BR Ambedkar’s Legacy”,  April 14 , 2015, http://www.hindustantimes.com; Nikhil Thiyyar, “Appropriating Ambedkar”, April 14, 2016,  http://www.hardnewsmedia.com.
[xv]   Excerpts from the editorial on the Constitution published in the Organiser, November 30, 1949. Taken from: Ramachandra Guha, Which Ambedkar? April 26, 2016, http://indianexpress.com.
[xvi]  B.R. Ambedkar, Pakistan or Partition of India, p. 358; also cited in:  Ziya Us Salam, “Smothering with Affection”, March 25, 2016, http://www.thehindu.com.
[xvii] Nikhil Thiyyar, “Appropriating Ambedkar”, op. cit.
[xviii]        Ramachandra Guha, Bhagwat’s Ambedkar, December 10, 2015, http://indianexpress.com.
[xix]  “5th February in Dalit History – Dr. Ambedkar introduced Hindu Code bill in the Parliament, Hindu leaders opposed it”, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar’s Caravan, https://drambedkarbooks.com.
[xx]   Full text of “Dr. B.R Ambedkar_CompleteWorks_Created by Dr. Anand Teltumbde”, https://archive.org.
[xxi]  Ambedkar’s speech on Voice of America radio cited in: “Prospects of Democracy in India – Babasaheb Dr. B. R. Ambedkar”, BAMCEF, http://www.old.bamcef.org.
[xxii] Ibid.
[xxiii]        Ibid.
[xxiv]        “Cohesion, Fragility and the Challenge of Our Times: Vice President Delivers Indira Gandhi Memorial Lecture of The Asiatic Society”, October 3, 2016, http://pib.nic.in.
[xxv] Shyam Chand, “Dr Ambedkar on Democracy”, Mainstream, December 11, 2007, https://www.mainstreamweekly.net.
[xxvi]        “Constitutional Methods, Uphold Liberties and Social Democracy: Vice President of India”, October 17, 2015, http://pib.nic.in.
[xxvii]       Shyam Chand, “Dr Ambedkar on Democracy”, op. cit.
[xxviii]      Ibid.
[xxix]        Ibid.
[xxx] Jean Drèze, ‘Dr. Ambedkar and the Future of Indian Democracy’, http://econdse.org.
[xxxi]        Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, Press interview, October 13, 1956, cited in: “Navayana”, https://ipfs.io.
[xxxii]       For more on this, see: “Jayadeva Uyangoda on Ambedkar’s Legacy”, April 26, 2016, https://kafila.org.
[xxxiii]      “Pledge given by Dr Ambedkar to Buddhist People”, May 27, 2013, http://ambedkarimedia.blogspot.in.
[xxxiv]      Dr B.R. Ambedkar, “Buddha or Karl Marx”, Volume 1, https://books.google.co.in.
[xxxv]       Anand Teltumbde, “Ambedkar And Communists”, August 16, 2012, http://www.countercurrents.org.
[xxxvi]      Dr B.R. Ambedkar, “Buddha or Karl Marx”, Volume 1, https://books.google.co.in.
[xxxvii]     Ambedkar’s speech on the ‘Voice of America’ radio, May 20, 1956, op. cit.
[xxxviii]    Anand Teltumbde, “Ambedkar And Communists”, op. cit.
[xxxix]      B. Chandrasekaran, “Ambedkar, the Forgotten Free-Market Economist”, April 14, 2011, http://pragati.nationalinterest.in.
[xl]    Chandrabhan Prasad and Milind Kamble, “Manifesto to End Caste : Push Capitalism and Industrialisation to Eradicate this Pernicious System”, January 23, 2013, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com.
[xli]   “Why BR Ambedkar’s Three Warnings in His Last Speech to the Constituent Assembly Resonate Even Today”, January 9, 2018, https://scroll.in.
 

The post Nehru, Ambedkar and Challenge of Majoritarianism appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Catching them young: RSS shakha. Photo credit: India Today

“Turfatar yeh hai, ki apna bhi
Na jaana, aur yun hee
Apna, apna kehke humko
Sabse beygaana kiya”
 -Saeed Naqvi

When Jawaharlal Nehru unquestioningly adopted the Euro-centric version of secularism for India he introduced the entire populace to public platforms of participation where religious identities were dismissed and disregarded. Nehru ignored the Indian reality which is deeply subsumed in religious experiences and refused to bring this discussion within the felt contours of public debates. He failed to create a healthy tradition of democratic engagement through public platforms wherein people from diverse socio-cultural and religious backgrounds could immerse in meaningful conversations.

Rabindranath Tagore had warned against uncritically enforcing a distinct separation between the state and religion; he emphasized that public life in India was invested with religious experiences and creating a political milieu where expression of religious affiliations is considered as “undemocratic” and “non-progressive” would engender negative feelings towards the ‘other’ who was unknown and inaccessible.

In this social realm where religious identities were formally dismissed and believers were mocked at, interactions between different communities could never materialize through safe channels of communication. As the “other” was always a distant entity within the larger social structure — never influencing the life outcomes of the ‘self’– it was fairly easy for radical ideologues to use this ‘fear’ as a site for fostering feelings of antagonism. As a consequence of this, we have been witnessing an increase in waves of communal clashes and violence as communities are compelled to share the same territory, resources and environment without ever trying to understand each other.

RSS has many ‘shakhas’ in the country to indoctrinate young minds with violent ways to combat the imagined enemy, the “religious other”. Similarly, many ‘madarasas’ encourage young students to criticize lifestyle practices which are different from theirs as necessarily un-Islamic and thus abominable.

This can be averted if the state recognizes that each human being is dealing with fear, longing and hope — the need to come to terms with the limitations of desire, and requires a material site through which this can be expressed. The nation needs poetry and religion so that un-assumed identities arbitrarily imposed on individuals do not convert them into religious monoliths with no other social identities to draw from.   

Catching them young: Madrasa students. Photo credit: Wilson

The lacunae created in public life because of the absence of a discussion on religion was filled by far right religious organizations who believe in consolidating their communities by annihilating others. Often times, these organizations fight for positions within the political structures of the society and use religion as a means to increase their presence in the public sphere and consequently the public mind. Threatened by violent narratives from various partisan groups the religious self rushes to his/her community for safety and a sense of belonging.

As individuals limit their life experiences to what happens within their respective communities, religious organizations premised on a discriminatory ideology find it easier to radicalize young individuals through the use of a single narrative embedded in ideas of aggression, purity and superiority. This project of socializing individuals into enacting discrimination through the use of violence requires a host of collective capillaries of public life to permeate the lived realities of individuals. In the case of Indian politics, educational institutions and media have been identified as the two most important capillaries of collective life.

Educational institutions, for instance, have been recognized as fertile grounds to train young children in practices of discrimination. RSS has many ‘shakhas’ in the country to indoctrinate young minds with violent ways to combat the imagined enemy, the “religious other”. Similarly, many ‘madarasas’ encourage young students to criticize lifestyle practices which are different from theirs as necessarily un-Islamic and thus abominable.

On the other hand, the state is making repetitive attempts to re-write history in order to reinforce a singular narrative and worldview against the very many which define the character of a pluralistic country such as India. Such efforts denigrate the search for true facts and use educational institutions as foot soldiers to implement the massive project of insinuating students with a social obligation to reify the normative categories and habitual modes of thoughts and actions.
Media is not free from the blame either. It is an inseparable part of the system and often operates from within the folds of institutional obligations. It acts as a material channel through which the dominant ideology permeates the lived experiences of young children and translates into practices of micro-aggression. The entire gamut of biased media narratives use politics of exclusion to articulate “what it means to be an Indian nationalist” to produce a definition which supports the rhetoric of majoritarianism.

For instance, respecting religious sentiments of one community by curbing lifestyle choices of others through a series of legal sanctions illustrate how the practice of tolerance is selectively imposed on members of particular communities while others unethically continue to work as vigilantes of the great Indian culture! Though media organizations try to report objectively, they cannot withdraw from the dynamics of a market driven economy where the government advertisements are the most lucrative source of revenue.

The influence on media, however, is not absolute and uninterrupted. Audience engages in negotiated reading with the text and often supplant their interpretation with borrowing from their family belief systems, lived experiences and community networks. Media is one of the many important social institutions which shape people’s reality and influence the way they think and act. It is a powerful channel through which a selected slice of reality is validated and presented as ‘the ultimate truth’ of the society.

It is, therefore, important to encourage young individuals to critically analyze media narratives and actively participate in the meaning-making process. They must be equipped with the necessary critical skills that allow them to divest their world view of the normative categories of classification and the normalized patterns of discriminatory behaviour.

What we need, today, are open platforms for public debate where individuals can voice their concerns about the use/abuse of religion for personal and political gains. The need of the hour is to go back to the Tagorian philosophy of bringing every issue within the purview of a disinterested rational inquiry so that it is rendered accessible to diverse voices.

We need to initiate a project of promoting religious literacy i.e. engagement practices which create an experience of ‘critical distance’ between the text and the reader, believer and the religious experience, and individual and the immediate socio-political world. We need to focus on expanding the expressive and communicative repertoires of individuals and allow them to explore alternate realities.

The communal voices can be challenged only with a rational mind which is critical of the ‘self’ just as much as it is critical of the ‘other’. Religious literacy is a political endeavour of creating a dialectical field where opposing forces can interact and engage with one another. It begins with acknowledging that differences are inevitable to human existence and that one must learn to negotiate with them instead of dismissing them as something ‘blasphemous’.

As Gandhi explained, “For humans to coexist with all their complexities and differences, channels of communication must always be open. A refusal to deliberate with others only because they have a different worldview marks the end of a democratic society.”

The current political landscape in India makes it unimaginable for educators to appeal to government sanctioned educational institutions to promote these ideas in classrooms and playgrounds. Our only hope remains with not-for-profit organizations and individual members of the society to infuse young minds with critical learning skills and enabling them to question social hierarchies. This project, thus, is a call for people who self identify as ‘civically engaged’ to honour their moral obligation towards upholding principles of social justice and equality in whatever little way possible.    

The writer is a PhD Scholar, Mudra Institute of Communications, Ahmedabad
 

The post Religious literacy: An educational project to counter the politics of ‘othering’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

We are a group of retired officers of All India and Central services of different batches, who have worked with the Central and state governments in the course of our careers. We should make it clear that as a group, we have no affiliation with any political party but believe in the credo of impartiality, neutrality and commitment to the Indian constitution. A sense of deep disquiet at what has been happening in India has prompted us to write this open letter to chronicle our reservations and misgivings about recent developments in the body politic. What has gone wrong?

It appears as if there is a growing climate of religious intolerance that is aimed primarily at Muslims. In Uttar Pradesh, in the run-up to the elections, an odious and frankly communal comparison was made between the relative number of burial grounds and cremation grounds. The question was also asked as to whether electricity was being supplied equally to different communities during their religious festivals. All this without any basis in fact or evidence. The banning of slaughter-houses targets the minorities and affects their livelihoods as well. Such intolerance breeds violence in a communally charged atmosphere – even to the extent of a local leader in UP provoking an attack upon the residence of a superintendent of police, whose family was terrorised.

Vigilantism has become widespread. An Akhlaq is killed on the basis of a suspicion that the meat he has is beef and a Pehlu Khan is lynched while transporting to his place two cows he had bought and for which he had the necessary papers. Nomadic shepherds are attacked in Jammu and Kashmir on some suspicion as they practice their age-old occupation of moving from one place to another along with their cattle and belongings.

The post A Conscience Note: Beware the Mob, Uphold the Constitution appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Representational photo

The feeling of separatism among the people of a bordering state is easily identified. But there are two types of separatism. In a state or region like Kashmir and North – Eastern states, separatism is identified in such a way that there is a group or more than one group of people who want to secede from Indian nation and they carry out “actions” to fulfill this desire. They try to galvanize public support through their “actions” and harm government machinery as well. But have we ever identified the separatism that is professed by the majority section of the society?

I belong to a Hindu family of north India. Right from the beginning, a separatist feeling against Kashmir has been cultivated within me. A survey can be conducted in entire north India to know how a relationship with Kashmir has been nurtured among the people of this region during their childhood. If I ask 100 children, they all know Kashmir only through the materials available in media. I want to repeat the story how I was introduced to Kashmir. I was born in the early years of 1960s. While going to school or returning back, I was told that Kashmir has a separate flag which is different from Indian tricolour. Like prime minister of India, it also has a prime minister. There is a separate section in Indian Constitution for it and Muslims are in majority there. Since Pakistan follows Islam, therefore loyalty of Kashmir people is also doubtful.

Interestingly, there is hardly any book on Kashmir which narrates the true story of accession of Kashmir into India. Particularly in Hindi, there is no such book yet. I saw a Facebook post, which was liked and shared by hundreds of people. The post contained the names of books which could prove helpful in understanding Kashmir. Dozens of them were in English, but there was none in Hindi.  A book that can develop affinity for Kashmir is not found, but a book is available to associate you with cow. Since school days, we have been taught to relate everything with cow like “G se Gai” (G for cow); “Gai hamari mata hai” (cow is our mother) and so on. There have been films on Kashmir. But they didn’t really associate with the fields and lives of Kashmir. Instead, they used to associate with ice – balls which were hurled by the hero of a Hindi film on his heroine.

 They also used to associate with the mountains laden with ice, which was eye – catching for the people belonging to the plains. In rhetoric, Kashmir was the crown which was a symbolic reminder of a Hindu king. And yes, the national catchphrase – “from Kanyakumari to Kashmir” – was made for our ears. Like books, there was so such film that could integrate with the people of Kashmir. For a child like me, Kashmir always remained in the mind as a beautiful piece of land and a threat to our nation. It was viewed as a threat at that time because Pakistan has an eye on it. In other words, a sense of insecurity was developed towards Kashmir. While the sense of insecurity generates separatism among minorities, it produces aggression among the majority section of the society.

If any cultural organization that has utilized Kashmir issue to the optimum level as a shield for its politics, it is none other than the Rashtriya Svayamsevak Sangh (RSS).  During its cultural activities, the Sangh narrates how atrocities are inflicted upon Hindus in Kashmir.  There are many handbills that recount such stories. Photographs, without any forensic test, can also be found. An art of generating separatism among the people of north India towards Kashmir has been an integral part of Sangh’s cultural activities.  The turning of cultural activities towards Right is the factor that separates people from each other. However, for the majority section, it triggers integration with the motherland. Motherland means the assets of the mother. Sangh’s story of atrocities on Hindus completes with the attacks by Muslims. Its literature is devoid of Kashmiriyat, a sentiment that motivated Kashmiri people irrespective of their religion to fight against the invasion of Pakistani tribals and laid their lives. The list of martyrs against Pakistani tribals includes those names only who participated in the war due to their faith in Kashmiriyat, not because of their belief in Islam.  

When I see the materials on activities related to Kashmir in media, it reminds me of those days when Panchajanya was the only nationalist mouthpiece of RSS in Hindi which used to come to those who were the regular visitors of Shakhas in our city.  This mouthpiece used to paint a negative image of Kashmir and depict it as a Pakistani base and a place where atrocities are inflicted on Hindus. Today I find various editions of Panchajanya, which have developed technically and emerged as TV news channels. Interestingly with growing numbers of nationalists in media, separatism against Kashmir and Kashmiri people is multiplying within me. More they become loud, more I secede from Kashmir. Really, I have become extremely secessionist. I am hostile against Kashmiri people. But I am known as a nationalist. My sensitivity is humane, but it is divided on Kashmir.  I am sensitive towards Kashmir, but am equally insensitive for Kashmiri people.

The separatism towards Kashmir within me is the nationalism of my beloved India. I have grown up with separatist tendencies. But this separatism is not called by name because it belongs to the majority section of the society. In a parliamentary democracy, majority is crucial. A separatism catered by minorities is dangerous for the parliamentary politics. My separatism wins elections. It works magic in north Indian politics.

(This article was first published on kafila.online).
 

The post “As a north Indian Hindu, I have grown up with separatist tendencies towards Kashmir” appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Demanding a thorough investigation into the matter, the letter, a copy of which is available with Sabrangindia says that while “Supporting activities abroad that strengthen public opinion in those countries about India and spread goodwill is understandable. But so far as I have known, the Government of India or its Commissions abroad or any of its other arms and institutions do not support the declared activities of political parties abroad. There have been complaints in the past of how the ruling party at the Centre has used subtle methods to promote the activities of their party's affiliates in these countries. But what we see here is a brazen effort and the public declaration that a voluntary unofficial event is being officially supported by your ministry, its mission in Malaysia and other organisations of the government of India.”
 
Yechury has requested a response to the concerns raised as also the matter to be placed on the agenda for discussions at at the next meeting of the Consultative Committee. This comes up at a time when the RSS-driven Cetral government is believed to be considering announcing that membership of the RSS and Jaamat-e-Islaami does not preclude enrolling in government jobs as public servants.

This development comes fast on the heels of news reports, dated June 10 that said that the government was seriously considering the repeal of a 1966 law,
reiterated subsequently in 1975 and 1980, requiring those joining government service to declare that they are not affiliated to either Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) or Jamaat-e-Islami. Both the countries prime minister, Narendra Modi and home minister, Rajnath Singh are primary members of the RSS that was a banned organisation following the assassination in cold blood of Mahatma Gandhi. It was the Gujarat government under Keshubhai Patel first, in 2001, that had sought to legitimise RSS membership for government servants.

Several state governments under the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which is in fact a parliamentary wing of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) have already reversed this central government law, be it Madhya Pradesh, Chhatisgarh or Gujarat.
 
References:

1. Sardar’s tight leash on Sangh chief Guru Golwalkar’s pledge of good conduct fails to impress government
2. The Ideology of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) is both Hate-Ridden and Supremacist – Part 1
3. CPIM General Secretary Sitaram Yechury on the RSS

The post External Affairs Ministry Sponsors BJP Abroad, Crosses the Line: Yechury appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
Aligarh Muslim University is, without doubt, a minority institution but it must allow reservations for Backward Caste Muslims alone

The Allahabad High Court in order to quash the 50 per cent quota for Muslims had to declare Aligarh Muslim University itself a non-minority institution since the reservation quota was based on its being a minority institution. However, the hon’ble court has based its judgement on the Supreme Court judgement in the case of Azeez Basha vs Union of India. In this case, the hon’ble judges of the Supreme Court concluded that Muslims are one homogenous community and in contrast the Hindus are not. Thus, according to this logic, Muslims constitute a majority community and Hindus several minority communities. So if Muslims are a minority according to this strange logic, they cannot enjoy a minority status as stipulated in Article 30 of the Constitution.

As to the second question, whether Sir Syed Ahmad Khan had established Aligarh Muslim University, it concluded that MAO College was transformed into a university through an Act of Parliament, which was representative of the whole country. As such, the judgement arrived at the conclusion that the Muslims are neither a minority community nor did they establish AMU and hence it is not a minority institution under the Indian Constitution.

The Allahabad High Court based its judgement on the Supreme Court judgement and quashed the 50 per cent quota as unconstitutional. If such perverse logic is applied, no justice will ever be done.

Historically, Muslims have been recognised as a minority community and apart from this, Muslims are not a homogenous community at all. They too are divided into various sects and follow different doctrines and practices. They are also divided into caste systems and do not intermarry. Certain beliefs are common but this is also true among Hindus. The Supreme Court judgement in the above case has negated the age-old consensus among all leaders of the freedom struggle and all negotiations based on the assumption that Muslims are a minority community.

Technically, it is true that AMU was established according to a parliamentary Act and is financed by the Government of India. But one cannot deny the fact that MAO College was established by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, who raised the entire infrastructure, including buildings, and this college fulfilled the needs of North Indian Muslims for close to 35 years. Moreover, it was on the insistence of Muslims themselves that the British government transformed it into a university.

Later, the Indian Parliament also amended the Aligarh Muslim University Act in 1981 and recognised the university as a Muslim institution, and it continued to be recognised as a minority institution. If one quashes its minority character by using such logic that Muslims are a majority community and Hindus are in the minority then one begins to doubt whether the judges have applied their minds properly or have become victims of certain myths being propagated by certain interests.

Also, it is well known that Muslims are very backward and in fact slipping even below the Scheduled Castes in all economic and educational indices. One should try to help Muslims through positive action rather than take away even legitimate rights. It is true that there is a controversy about reservations on a religious basis. Should the entire Muslim community be treated as one and reservations be given to the community as a whole or should this be done on the basis of caste? 

Indian Muslims, most of whom were converted from low castes, retained their caste identities though untouchability was not as severe among them as among Hindus. Many Muslim leaders and activists belonging to lower castes are now struggling for the benefits of reservations on a caste basis. Today in UP, Bihar, Maharashtra and other states there is a Backward Caste movement asking for Mandal Commission benefits. They maintain, and rightly so, that until now the ashraf (upper caste Muslims like Syeds, Shaikhs, Pathans etc.) have pocketed all the benefits in the name of Muslims and that this cannot be allowed perpetually.

Should reservations in various professional courses granted by the AMU executive committee and confirmed by the human resources ministry be given to Muslims as a whole or to Backward Caste Muslims only? This is the real question. It is true that Backward Caste Muslims have been left high and dry while all the benefits have gone to a small section of upper caste Muslims. Democracy and implementation of the Mandal Commission recommendations has brought new awareness among these poor and OBC Muslims to fight for their rights.

The real debate should not be whether reservations ought to be given or not but about which sections of Muslims this benefit should reach. The Left, which has always been sympathetic towards the plight of the Muslim minority, should not ask for the scrapping of religion-based reservations in toto but should use its influence to get benefits for OBC Muslims.

It is true that an overwhelming majority of Muslims in India today belong to the OBC and Dalit categories. There are hardly 10 per cent of Muslims who belong to the ashraf categories…

Thus, in my opinion, the reservations granted in professional courses (at AMU) should be retained and their benefit be given to OBC Muslims… Like the lower caste among Hindus these lower caste Muslims have also suffered intensely. In this way, communal forces will also not be able to exploit these reservations for Muslims politically

Archived from Communalism Combat, November 2005 Year 12    No.112 -Cover Story 4

The post Flawed judgement appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
Rights or privilege?

The recent Allahabad High Court judgement ruling that Aligarh Muslim University is not a minority institution has sparked a nationwide controversy

The recent decision of the Allahabad High court effectively holding that the Aligarh Muslim University cannot claim minority status compounds the confusion created by the Supreme Court over the last 50 years in matters pertaining to rights of minority educational institutions.

But before we look at the Allahabad judgement and some of the other decisions of the Supreme Court it is necessary to contextualise the rights of minorities.

The yardstick for measuring the intrinsic strength of a secular democracy is how secure the minorities feel within the nation. No doubt, democracy is ultimately supposed to be the rule of the majority but at the same time there have to be inbuilt safeguards to ensure that a rule of the majority does not become tyranny by the majority. It is in this context that the rights of minorities acquire crucial significance.

Justice Jackson of the US Supreme Court rightly pointed out in the West Virginia State Board of Education case: "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein".

Democracy is the rule of equality where all persons are treated as equal whether they belong to the majority or minority. It has been argued that the fact that the minorities are being treated as equals, and that too through a fundamental right, should satisfy and protect them. Where then is the need for special safeguards or separate fundamental rights? But as observed by the Supreme Court in the case of St Stephen’s College vs University of Delhi (1992): "The minorities do not stand to gain much from the General Bill of Rights or Fundamental Rights which are available only to individuals. The minorities require positive safeguards to preserve their minority interests which are also termed as group rights".

Similarly, in the St Xavier’s College case judgement of 1974, Justice Khanna observed: "The idea of giving some special rights to the minorities is not to have a kind of privileged or pampered section of the population but to give the minorities a sense of security and a feeling of confidence".

It has been internationally recognised that minorities need not just equal treatment but also special protection. It has been assumed, and rightly so, that the majority can look after and take care of itself in respect of protection of language, religion or culture.

In all functioning secular democracies, individuals and groups have the right to practice and propagate religion as a basic right. A secular state necessarily means the absence of any state religion. But this is a very restrictive definition. Secularism also means that the state shall protect those who do not follow the majority religion. It is thus crucial that sufficient protective measures exist for the religious minority groups to protect their religion.

There is a major difference between the Backward Castes and linguistic and religious minorities. The only way in which the Backward Castes can get out of their oppression in the long run is through a casteless society i.e. if they lose their caste status. The Backward Castes will benefit and in the ultimate analysis be rid of their oppression if they lose their caste identity and in that sense merge with the so-called mainstream. For the linguistic and religious minorities the issue is different. They want to retain their identity as separate linguistic or religious groups. As very rightly said, Jews do not want to be Catholics, Gujaratis do not want to be Maharashtrians and Muslims do not want to be Hindus. Looked at from this point of view, the stress laid time and again by the Supreme Court that all educational institutions should be melting pots for all communities is wide off the mark.

The Constituent Assembly recognised that religious and linguistic minorities have to be protected by allowing them to establish and administer educational institutions for conserving their script, language or religion and giving them adequate facilities so that they are not hampered in this. It is in this context that Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution have to be viewed.

The test of whether an educational institution is actually a minority institution or not should be whether it in fact protects or promotes a minority script, religion, language or culture. But over the last 50 years the Supreme Court has consistently negated this argument

"29(1) Any section of the citizens residing in the territory of India or any part thereof having a distinct language, script or culture of its own shall have the right to conserve the same.

"30(1) All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.

"(2) The State shall not, in granting aid to educational institutions, discriminate against any educational institution on the ground that it was under the management of minority, whether based on religion or language."

It is very clear from Articles 29 and 30 and also from the discussion above that the purpose of granting protection to minority educational institutions is to ensure that the minorities, religious or linguistic, are able to protect their script, language, religion or culture. Thus, the test of whether an educational institution is actually a minority institution or not should be whether it in fact protects or promotes a minority script, religion, language or culture. But over the last 50 years the Supreme Court has consistently negated this argument.

The Supreme Court has throughout held that the only test to determine the minority status of an educational institution is whether it is established and administered by a minority and not whether it is running for the benefit of the minority. To put it simply, if five Maharashtrians get together and start a Marathi medium school in Mumbai it will not be treated as a minority institution. But if five Gujaratis get together and start a Marathi medium school in Mumbai it will be treated as a minority school. For example, in Mumbai there are colleges run by Sindhis which do not give preference to Sindhi students, do not necessarily prefer Sindhi teachers, do not offer Sindhi as even an optional subject but are granted minority status.

Because of this skewed interpretation by the Supreme Court, the only reason why most of the institutions claim minority status is to get certain benefits for the management and not for the script, language or culture of the minority that they represent. There are, broadly, three benefits available to a minority institution that are not available to other institutions:

(a) Minority educational institutions do not have to maintain reservation in employment or admissions for SCs, STs and OBCs as required to be done by other educational institutions.

While on the one hand, genuine minority institutions do not get adequate protection under Article 30, on the other hand fake minority institutions enjoy these rights and privileges. What is needed is a comprehensive overhaul of the Article 30 jurisprudence developed by the Supreme Court over the last 50 years 

(b) In terms of control over employees, minority educational institutions have much greater powers than other institutions. For instance, in the selection of teachers and principals the minority educational institution can have a selection committee which does not include the university representative. Similarly, while in ordinary schools the headmasters normally have to be appointed on the basis of seniority, minority managements can select a headmaster of their choice.

(c) In matters of admission of students, minority educational institutions can have reservation of up to 50 per cent for students of their community.

Unfortunately, it has been observed that most of the managements seek minority status only to avoid reservation for Backward Castes and for victimising employees.

It is in this context that Aligarh Muslim University seems to have been ‘done in’ by a curious interpretation of the Constitution first by the Supreme Court and now by the Allahabad High Court.

The case of Azeez Basha vs Union of India (AIR 1968 SC 663) was decided by a constitutional bench of the Supreme Court in 1967. The question was whether certain amendments to the Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920 affected the Muslim minority’s rights under Article 30(1). The court held that though the university came into existence because of the demands from the Muslim minority community and due to their efforts, it was in fact ‘established’ by a central legislation and hence could not be said to be ‘established’ by a minority.

This is and was an amazing decision. Having accepted and held that it was as a result of the efforts and aspirations of Muslims that the university was established, for the Supreme Court to turn around and hold that it was not a minority institution merely because it was formally brought into existence by an enactment is to make a mockery of minority rights. As the constitutional expert HM Seervai rightly pointed out, any university has two distinguishing features: firstly, it is incorporated by a sovereign and secondly, it is empowered to give its own degrees which are recognised by the sovereign. The only manner in which a community could establish such a university was by invoking the exercise of the sovereign power, which might take the form of either a Charter or an Act of the legislature. This, the Muslim community that had set up the Mohammedan Anglo-Oriental (MAO) College, did. They brought the university into existence in the only manner in which such a university could have been brought into existence, namely, by invoking the exercise by the sovereign authority of the legislative power.

It was the Muslim community that had provided the lands, money and other necessaries for founding the university and in that sense ‘founded’ the university. By the logic of the Supreme Court, though a university is an educational institution it can never ever get the character of a minority educational institution.

The same error has been committed by the Allahabad High Court in its October 2005 judgement in the case of Dr. Naresh Agarwal vs Union of India where certain amendments to the Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920 were challenged. After the decision in the case of Azeez Basha, the Act was amended to incorporate specific provisions in the Act which categorically pointed to the fact that the university was established by Muslims. A further amendment stated that one of the objects for establishing the university was to ‘promote especially the educational and cultural advancement of the Muslims in India’. On the basis of this, a reservation for Muslim students in admissions was provided. This was challenged by some non-Muslim candidates.

It was argued that in view of the amendments of 1981 the basis of the Supreme Court decision in the Azeez Basha case had been removed and so Aligarh Muslim University could at least now be termed a minority educational institution. However, following the logic of the Supreme Court, the Allahabad High Court rejected this contention and effectively held that no university could ever be a minority institution.

In keeping with the past record of the courts, the decision is not at all surprising. While on the one hand, genuine minority institutions do not get adequate protection under Article 30, on the other hand fake minority institutions, which have been mushrooming only for the managements to derive personal benefits without having any impact on community rights, enjoy these rights and privileges.

What is needed is a comprehensive overhaul of the Article 30 jurisprudence developed by the Supreme Court over the last 50 years, which in my opinion has been totally wrong and not in consonance with the spirit of the Constitution. Minority status needs to be given only to those educational institutions which promote or protect the script, language, culture or religion of a minority grouping and the protection given to these institutions needs to be only to the extent that such protection furthers these goals. We cannot allow either the Backward Castes or employees to be sacrificed on the altar of such protection.

Archived from Communalism Combat, November 2005 Year 12  No.112, Cover Story 1
 

The post Minority institutions appeared first on SabrangIndia.