Gandhi spent the last year of his life trying to quell communal violence

This year we celebrate 150 years of Mahatma Gandhi. Organisations are planning functions, memorials, and marches in his honour across not just India but the entire world. At the same time, subtle efforts to subvert his message and redirect even his title of “Father of the Nation” are under play in contemporary India. His greatest legacy has beenof Ahimsa (non-violence) and communal harmony, the cause which he ultimately lost his life to.

Do young Indians remember his efforts towards the same after the Independence of India was achieved?

He preached “Ahimsa”(non-violence) throughout the Independence movement and it was this brand of seeking justice that made him revered by Indians and feared by British colonisers. In a cruel twist of irony, he met a violent death. But even before his assassination, the Mahatma had repeatedly voiced how he did not want to live anymore because his teachings of Ahimsa had been disregarded by his own people who indulged in widespread violence before and during Partition.

On October 2, 1947, he is quoted to have said,

‘‘मेरे लिए तो आज मातम मनाने का दिन है। मैं आज तक जिन्दा पड़ा हूं। इस पर मुझ को खुद आश्चर्य होता है, शर्म लगती है, मैं वही शख्स हूं कि जिसकी जुबान से एक चीज निकलती थी कि ऐसे करो तो करोड़ों उसको मानते थे। पर आज तो मेरी कोई सुनता नहीं हैं। मैं कहूं कि तुम ऐसा करो, ‘नहीं, ऐसा नहीं करेंगे’ ऐसा कहते हैं।… ऐसी हालत में हिन्दुस्तान में मेरे लिए जगह कहां है और मैं उसमें जिन्दा रह कर क्या करूंगा ? आज मेरे से 125 वर्ष की बात छूट गई है। 100 वर्ष की भी छूट गई है और 90 वर्ष की भी। आज मैं 79 वर्ष में तो पहुंच जाता हूं, लेकिन वह भी मुझको चुभता है।’’

(“Today is a day of mourning for me. The fact that I am still alive surprises and embarrasses me. I am the same person whose words were followed by crores of people, but now, no one listens to me. If I ask them to do something, they say, no, we will not do this. In such circumstances, where is my place in Hindustan and what will I gain by remaining alive? I used to say I want to live till the age of 125, but I have given that up now, not even 100, not even 90, today I have reached 79 years of age and even this hurts me.”)

In the lead up to agreements about Partition and Independence between Indian leaders and British authorities, rifts were evident between the extreme “Hindu” and “Muslim” factions. Sensing that political leaders were ready to risk civil war in the pursuit of power, Gandhi distanced himself from the negotiations that commenced in 1946. He called the planned Partition “vivisection of India” and set off to Naokhali in East Bengal (present day Bangladesh) where riots had erupted in mid-1947 following the proclamation of impending Partition. He walked from village to village nursing, consoling, and appealing for peace.

He travelled back to Delhi due to appeals from the British Viceroy seeking his advice on how to stop the killings, he soon realised it was a charade and that the administration was not interested in taking steps to ensure peace. He decided to leave Delhi and return to Noakhali where he was needed and listened to. Before reaching Noakhali, his train stopped at Calcutta (modern day Kolkata) and he was greeted by crowds of Muslims who were pleading with him to stay on, in Calcutta.

The Muslim minority there feared that the transfer of power to a “Hindu Congress” government in West Bengal would revive riots that had started a year ago, on August 16, 1946, after the proclamation of “Direct Action Day” by Mohammad Ali Jinnah, president of the Muslim League. The man most widely blamed for the violent riots that followed Direct Action Day was Bengal’s Muslim League,chief minister, Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy who had given the police, a “holiday” to celebrate Direct Action Day which rendered the people unprotected when mobs broke out. The British Army, coldly inactive despite being present, was equally to blame for its inaction during the riots.

Suhrawardy was stripped of Calcutta’s chief ministership. He even had to give up his dream of presiding over an independent nation of Bengal—Bangladesh—a new nation state he had lobbied hard to have carved out of the Eastern quarter of British India by integrating the Hindu majority West Bengal and Muslim majority East Pakistan into a single unified land of Bengali speakers, whose language and culture would transcend any differences of religious doctrine or practice.

When the crowds of Muslims requested Gandhi to stay in Calcutta in August 1947, he agreed on one condition, that he and Suhrawardy would live under the same roof, so that they could appeal to Muslims and Hindus alike to live in peace.

“Adversity makes strange bed-fellows,” Gandhi told his prayer meeting in Calcuttaon August 11, 1947. He moved into the abandoned Hydari House with Suhrawardy. This symbolic gesture was intended to demonstrate forgiveness and communal harmony to Calcutta‘s angry and fearful Hindus and Muslims. When Hindu mobs tried to break into the house asking why the Mahatma was siding with Muslims, he answered, “I have come here to serve not only Muslims but Hindus. You can obstruct my work, even kill me. I won’t invoke the help of the police. You can prevent me from leaving this house, but what is the use of your dubbing me an enemy of the Hindus? I will not accept the label.” The Mahatma then asked them what good it would do now to “avenge” the wrongs committed in 1946.

On August 14, 1947, Gandhi had a discussion with angry Hindu youth –even a young couple who had lost a son to bitter communal hatred—and, by evening, he had won their hearts and minds. When questioned in anguish by these young parents on how they could overcome their feelings of anger and grief at their young son’s killings, he said, “adopt a Muslim child, the same age as your lost son. Bring him up as a Muslim. In these acts let your feelings of bitterness and revenge dissolve into ultimate forgiveness and compassion. Remember your son in your adopted son.”

An estimated ten thousand people gathered to hear Gandhi’s prayer that evening. “If the flames of communal strife envelop the whole country,” Gandhi asked, “how can our newborn freedom survive?”

When the moment of freedom did arriveon August 15, 1947, he awoke at 2 a.m.in Calcutta, having slept through Nehru’s “Tryst with Destiny” speech at midnight. He was not in Delhi on the very eve of India’s Independence even as political leaders in Delhi called him the architect of Indian Independence and hailed him as “Father of the Nation”. He knew his work to bring about communal peace was more important.

He was already planning to go to West Pakistan to make a final pilgrimage to bring an end to the violence against Hindus and Sikhs. As we know, it was not to be. He was assassinated a few months later, and now, 150 years after he was born, his ideologies of Ahimsa and Communal Harmony seem to be dying a slow death too.

This Gandhi Jayanti, as we participate in functions and memorials, as we undertake activities like Swachchta Abhiyan in his honour, let us remember that the greatest way to honour him is to practice Ahimsa and honour the cause he died for- PEACE and COMMUNAL HARMONY.
 
Note: With thanks to Nitin Thakur, Asst. Editor TV9 Bharatvarsh, for valuable inputs.

References:

1. Gandhi: Ek Asambhav Sambhavna –by Sudhir Chandra
2. Gandhi’s Passion: The Life and Legacy of Mahatma Gandhi –by Stanley Wolpert
3. Nitin Thakur Page

 
Related articles:

1. Gandhi’s contribution to Communal Harmony
2. An Essay for Our Times: Diversity and Indian Nationalism
3. Right to Analyse Gandhi and Appraise Godse

The post 150 years of Gandhi: A legacy of Ahimsa and Communal Peace appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This year 2019, this day of ‘non-violence’ is extra-special: it is the 150th birth anniversary of Gandhi. Sadly, enough the widely accepted ‘Global Peace Index 2019’ places India a miserable 141 out of 163 countries ranked. If India’s performance of the last four months must be revaluated based on various parameters used in the survey, the country would surely figure among the most violent nations on earth today! Yes, we are violent! Violence, in India, is increasing in every sphere day by day! We lack the visionary leadership and a mass movement to mainstream non-violence!

We are violent: Kashmir is a classic case today! For almost two months we have violently denied the people living there what is legitimately theirs. We have denied them their freedom of speech, expression and movement and their other human rights. The unconstitutional manner by which Articles 370 and 35A have been abrogated would make any thinking and objective citizen to grimace in anguish! In fact, several of us, in a pernicious way have ‘celebrated’, the overrunning of Kashmir and the way the military is used to cage in people.

We are violent: the poor are impoverished day by day! On the other hand, the rich and the powerful are given licence and privileges to become richer every day. The growing gap between the rich and poor is widening as never before! For those who ‘have’ it does not matter, if their ‘lollipops’ are not snatched away.  Industries are closing; unemployment has reached an all-time high; suicides of farmers and other poor in rural India are unabated. Demonetisation and other faulty policies have wreaked havoc on the economy. This is also violence. We don’t seem to realise that.

We are violent: Dalits and Adivasis in most cases continue to be marginalised. This is clearly reflected in our attitudes towards them and in our persistent action of treating them as the ‘other’. We are subtly and directly told that ‘those who scavenge are ordained by God to do so.’ Vacancies for them in education and jobs are never filled. Dalit boys who are defecating in public are bludgeoned to death by a high caste mob the forests are strategically being taken away from Adivasis and other forest dwellers: a place which they called home from time immemorial.

We are violent: women and children continue to be victims of a patriarchal society. When a young girl studying in a law college is repeatedly raped by a powerful politician, it is she who is sent to jail! One needs to take a cursory glance at a daily newspaper to see how women are consistently subject to every form of violence at home and in society. Recent international studies highlight that India is no safe place for women. The same is the fate of children too; child labour is rampant!

We are violent: minorities are a soft target! We forget that India belongs to all and pluralism is our strength. Muslims and Christians are put on the backfoot and frequently attacked. Hate speeches abound denigrating the minorities. Ruling party members instigate the people by questioning the ‘patriotism’ of minorities. The ‘conversion’ bogey is played repeatedly like a record pin stuck in a groove; all part of a divisive game plan. Minorities are not easily given Government jobs and, in some places, not allowed to live in the place of their choice.

We are violent: lynching is the new normal! Words of a former Chief Justice of India! The ‘hindutva’ elements continue with frightening regularity to lynch people. They don’t need a reason: it could be what one eats or wears or writes or speaks. They think it is their ‘divine right’ to take law and order in their own hands. They do so with impunity because they know that they are cloaked with immunity: the ‘powers’ are with them! A man is lynched in the midst of several witnesses and of course the police later on have to say that the man has died of ‘cardiac arrest’!

We are violent: look at our environment! There is no concerted and sustainable action to address the disastrous effects of climate change. Powerful mining and timber lobbies plunder natural resources and pillage our forests at will. The real estate developers indiscriminately close natural water bodies in order to put up palatial buildings. We see no problem in destroying part of the ‘Aarey’ Forest for the construction of a metro shed. Care of the environment for many, is merely a cosmetic exercise and often a propaganda stunt! India has some of world’s most polluted cities!

We are violent: arms and ammunition are now are strength! We falsely pride ourselves that might is right. India today is the largest importer of arms in the world! Not a laudatory statement for a country where millions still must eke out their survival. In order to defocus from the grim realities of the country ‘Pakistan’ is made the enemy. Events are stage-managed. Frenzy is raked up in order to create a ‘war-like’ atmosphere and if the so-called ‘eventuality’ rises. Nuclearization is on an upscale, when a good part of the world is working towards ‘de-nuclearization’

We are violent: there is blatant social media manipulation and disinformation campaign orchestrated at the highest levels. A well-researched study entitled ‘The Global Disinformation Order’ was recently released by the Oxford University.  The report highlights how India is one of the countries that use social media to manufacture consensus, automate suppression and undermine trust. It shows how Government deploys an army of ‘trolls’ (whom they call ‘cyber troops’) to bully or harass political dissidents or journalists online. Violence is clamping down truth!

We are violent: when we choose not to speak! When we do not take a stand for the down-trodden and the exploited, for human rights defenders and journalists who expose a wrong, we become complicit to crime. When as Judges of Supreme and High Courts, we ‘rescue’ ourselves from contentious cases knowing that if the cause of Justice must be served, one must take a stand on the side of truth. When we think that soft-pedalling an issue or taking a more ‘diplomatic’ stance is an option for brownie points. Not being visible and vocal for Justice and Truth is violence.

Today as we celebrate the birthday of a man who gifted us the strength of ‘non-violence’, and the tremendous impact this form of social response has had all over the world, we in India, need to hang our heads down in shame! Instead of being the beacon of non-violence in the world, we have allowed ourselves, our attitudes, our articulations and our actions to be steeped in violence. When a person is being lynched, we take sadistic pleasure in video graphing that incident and are sometimes debased enough to click a selfie during that terrible violence. On this sacred day, we would well to commit ourselves, at every level to non-violence. Above all, we need to recall the words of the Mahatma that, “Non-violence is not a garment to be put on and off at will. Its seat is in the heart, and it must be an inseparable part of our being”.
                                                                                                                                 
*(Fr. Cedric Prakash is a human rights/peace activist &writer Contact: cedricprakash@gmail.com)
 

The post We are Violent ! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Director Martin Doblmeier’s new documentary, “Backs Against the Wall: The Howard Thurman Story,” is scheduled for release on public television in February. Thurman played an important role in the civil rights struggle as a key mentor to many leaders of the movement, including Martin Luther King Jr., among others.
 

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post How Howard Thurman met Gandhi and brought nonviolence to the civil rights movement appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Let us embrace non-violence as an attitude! The attitude by whichone looks at or perceives the ‘other’; the attitude which is warm, welcoming and inclusive; the attitude which makes it irrelevant whether thenationality, race, religion, colour, gender,, caste, ethnicity, ideology or whatever, is different; the attitude which is non-discriminatoryandnon-xenophobic; the attitude that we all belong to one human family and what matters ultimately, is our common and shared humanity.

Let us embrace non-violence as a right! The right of every person everywhere in this world; the rights which are enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the Constitutions of most countries in today’s world; the rights of the other- to life, to believe in the religion of one’s choice, to freedom of speech and expression; to eat and drink, to read and see what one wishes to- without fear or favour; therights which are fundamental and inalienable, the denial of them isindeed violence!

Let us embrace non-violence with courage! The courage one needs to stand up against the fascists, the fanatics and the fundamentalists of today; the courage to take on the killers of Gauri Lankesh, Shantanu Bhowmick, Narendra Dabholkar,M.M. Kalburgi, Govind Pansare, of other media persons, RTI activists,and human rights defenders; the courage to take on the molesters of the lady students in the Banaras Hindu University and those who suppress the voices of students elsewhere; the courage  to expose the Sangh Parivar and those who violently kill and crush others, be it those who eat beef or innocent children in the hospitals of UP. Mahatma Gandhi puts it succinctly,”nonviolence is not to be used ever as the shield of the coward. It is the weapon of the brave.”

Let us embrace non-violence with compassion! That compassion which is necessary to reach out to the Rohingyas, fleeing violence and persecution; the compassion to prevent the landmines, the rubber bullets and the hostilities being unleashed on them; the compassion which will ensure that India willingly opens the doors to them; the compassion to make refugees and other displaced persons feel welcomed and ‘at home’; the compassion to build bridges everywhere.

Let us embrace non-violence in freedom!The freedom to take on the peddlers of war and violence; the freedom to carefront the power-hungry, crazy so-called ‘leaders’ of this world who spew hate, venom and divisiveness all the time; the freedom to expose the profiteering, blood-sucking military-industrial complex who care two hoots if violence becomes a way of life for many in this world; the freedom to challenge those countries who spend more on arms and ammunition than on the much-needed social sector.

Let us embrace non-violence with Truth! Truth that is the other side of the coin of ‘non-violence’ for Gandhi, as he aptly put it “my religion is based on truth and non-violence. Truth is my God. Non-violence is the means of realising Him”. Truth as we celebrate his memory on another birth anniversary. Truth in dealing with the ‘Godse’s’ of our times. Truth as a non-negotiable and as the way of living in a more just, peaceful and non-violent world.

Let us embrace non-violence on October 2^ndthe International Day of Non-Violence; a day on which, in keeping with the UN resolution, we all need to reaffirm “the universal relevance of the principle of non-violence” and the desire “to secure a culture of peace, tolerance, understanding and non-violence”; a day on which we must pledge to go beyond tokenism and cosmetics, to make non-violence an integral dimension of our daily lives

Let us embrace non-violence with the realisation in the words of Gandhi that, “nonviolence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man.” Embracing non-violence today must be our way of proceeding!
 
(The author is a human rights activist)

The post Embracing Non-Violence appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Photo credit: Wessex Scene

For nearly one and a half million Rohingyas, it must be a rude shock to realise that they are no longer Burmese citizens. Rohingyas are Burmese Muslims who settled in that part of the world in the wake of British East India Company colonizing Burma. These Muslims primarily came from Bangladesh but they were not the only Muslims living in Burma. Muslim presence in Burma predates the migration of Bangladeshis to this country. But the problem today is that if you are a Muslim in Myanmar then you are considered an outsider and a threat to the country. It does not matter when your ancestors came to this country.

 It does not matter if in the past, Burmese Kings styled  themselves on the Nawabs of Bangladesh and were largely emulative of Islamic culture. What matters today is that the Buddhists do not want Muslims in their country and perhaps will go to any extent to realise this dream of Muslim free Myanmar.

Buddhism proclaims itself as a peaceful religion and goes to the world announcing its non-violence and inclusivity of its faith. And yet today the same Buddhists are baying for the blood of Muslims. Ever since the Buddhists of Burma have experienced nationalism, they have realised the need to project another: in this case an internal enemy who are supposedly bleeding the country dry. The comparisons with nationalisms in other countries have chilling similarities. Accusations of ‘breeding like rabbits’, non-acculturating tendencies of Muslims and of course their link to terrorism is touted as the reasons why Buddhist majority is supposedly losing its patience with the Muslims.

 The truth is always complex: Muslims being poor definitely have higher birth rates but whether it is due to their religion or their class situation is hardly discussed. There is hardly any documented evidence to suggest that Rohingyas have been active within any jihadist networks. But then when nationalism becomes the ruling ideology, truth is always the first casualty. There is no point talking about evidences and facts, what matters are the perceptions.

And the overwhelming perception today within Myanmar is against the Muslims. The problem is compounded by the fact that these Muslims are concentrated in one part of the country-the Rakhine state- and that gives them greater visibility as well as marks them as a community to be discriminated against.

Nothing can justify what is happening to these Muslims. Through a slow process, they are being disenfranchised and there is institutional discrimination against them. In 1982, the Burmese government passed an order which effectively made them non-citizens within their own country by classifying them as Bengali refugees. Moreover laws passed by the Myanmar government have made marriages within Rohingya community extremely difficult.

The two child norm forced by the state for this ethnic community means that other children born within families remain without education and other facilities which other children get. What is most problematic is that after being stripped of their citizenship status, the Rohingyas have been denied freedom of movement which means that they can hardly go outside of the Rakhine state. This essentially means that they are being made to live in ghettos without any opportunity to earn their livelihood.

It is heart rending to hear tales of their persecution including forcible evictions, houses raised to the grounds, shops and establishments being burnt and looted and reports of mass rape. What is perhaps more disappointing is that there is hardly any voice within Myanmar today which can call this injustice by its name: that it is akin to a pogrom or that the state has become committed to a genocide.

 It was hoped that Aung San Suu Kyi would be in a position to urge the international community to take notice of what has been happening in her country. However it is a rather sad commentary on the so called human rights activist and Nobel Prize winner that she has been silent on the whole issue. Not only has she been silent but at times she is even seen to be supporting the military junta over the question of Muslim repression. Her silence only means that there is near consensus within Myanmar over the Muslim Rohingya question.

But the most severe criticism should be reserved for Muslim countries. There are 57 Muslim countries representing a combined Muslim population of 1.7 billion and yet they have hardly been pro-active on this issue. It is true that some Muslim countries have offered refugee status to these Rohingyas but the situation is hardly satisfactory even within these countries. The Rohingya settlements in Bangladesh for example are another ghetto where these Muslims do not have freedom of movement. They are cut off from the rest of the world and independent journalists hardly have access to these settlements. But the real important point is this: that despite Muslim countries having clout in the United Nations and elsewhere, they have not been able to bring international pressure on Myanmar over its treatment of the Rohingyas.

It is not that atrocities against these Muslims have not been documented: Human rights groups have done and have tried to make international bodies aware of it. Despite all these documented proofs, important Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran have not been able to isolate Myanmar over this issue. We need to ask those who swear in the name of the Ummah: is the blood of Rohingyas insipid in comparison to other Muslims?

(Arshad Alam is a NewAgeIslam.com columnist).

(This article was first published on NewAgeIslam).

 

The post Why the Blood of the Rohingyas Does Not Fire the Muslim Ummah appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The sangh parivar's denigration of Emperor Ashoka is an attempt to undermine Buddhism vis-a-vis Brahmanism.

Past is used by communal politics for their present political agenda. In India on one hand we have the use of medieval history where Muslim kings are presented as "aggressors due to whom Hindu society had to suffer", on the other now we are witnessing the distortion of ancient history being marshaled to undermine Buddhism vis-a-vis Brahmanism.

The figure chosen to make this point by communal forces is that of Emperor Ashoka. Incidentally Noble Laureate Amartya Sen regards Ashoka and Akbar as the two greatest emperors to have ruled India. A publication from RSS progeny, Rajasthan Vanvasi Kalyan Parishad claims that it was due to Ashoka’s conversion to Buddhism and his promotion of ahimsa that India’s borders opened up to foreign invaders. It also goes on to say the followers of Buddhism under Ashoka played a seditious role. They assisted Greek invaders with the goal that they would destroy “Vedic religion” and restore Buddhism. Here, what is being referred to as Vedic religion is Brahmanism as such.

Interestingly the article regards Ashoka to be a great ruler till he embraced Buddhism, while most of the thinkers show that his humane policies that made him a great emperor were brought in after he embraced Buddhism. There are many components of this formulation which are concocted as per the political requirement of Brahmanical Hinduism. One of these concoctions is the very notion of India being the state from times immemorial. One understands that India as a nation state emerged during freedom struggle. The earlier formations were kingdoms and empires. The boundaries of these kingdoms were not fixed and depending on the bravery and other associated factors kings were expanding their area of rule, or had to retreat into smaller areas, or even getting decimated at times. Even before Ashoka came to power Alexander had attacked India. Such forays of kings into other territories are not unknown. Mauryan Empire was a major empire the sub-continent has seen.

So many dynasties have ruled large parts of the subcontinent, no single ruler has ruled whole of what is India today. So why is Ashoka being targeted today? Ashoka was successor to Bindusar, from Maurya lineage. Chandragupta Maurya had built the empire and Ashok’s annexed Kalinga (modern Odisha) into his kingdom. This battle was very bloody and as is famously known the bloodshed shook Ashoka and he decided to embrace Buddhism. From this point on the transformation of an aggressive, insensitive king to a very humane person began with the embracing of Buddhism. He undertook measures for welfare of the people, opposed the Brahmanical rituals and opened the gates of his palace for listening to woes of people of his empire. Inspired by the teachings of Buddhism he took steps towards building a compassionate state, a guardian state.

His ideas and polices are deciphered from the number of edicts carved on pillars and stones which are vast in number. What emerge from these edicts are very compassionate and impressive norms being propagated as far back as in the third century BC. What is remarkable is that though he embraced Buddhism he accepted diversity as the norm for society. One of his edicts says that a ruler must accept the diversity of his subjects’ beliefs. He did transform Buddhism into a world religion. The spread of his ideas was not through force but through moral appeal and persuasion. His message was to reduce suffering and to pursue peace, openness and tolerance. This is why he is regarded as great contrary to the said article's claim that he was great till he embraced Buddhism.

Ashoka’s was the largest empire in the history of the sub-continent. His Dhamma was a moral code for the ruler as well as for the subjects who were exhorted to follow the moral path. His Rock Edict XII is something which we need to remember in current times as well as it has great relevance even today. It is a call for religious tolerance and civility in public life or as he puts it, "restraint in speech",  “not praising one’s own religion or condemning the religion of the others without good cause… Contact between religions is good.” (Sunil Khilanani, Incarnations, ‘India in 50 Lives’ page 52). "He did not foist his faith, Buddhism on his subjects…He is important in history for his policy of peace, non-aggression and cultural conquest". (R.S. Sharma, Ancient India, NCERT, 1995, 104).

Ashoka inspired the leaders of freedom movement with his principles of justice and non-violence. He did represent the agenda which symbolised cultural and religious pluralism which were central to the ideology of Gandhi and Nehru in particular. His symbols of four lions adorn Indian currency and the wheel has become part of the Indian flag.

The problem with Ashoka’s rule was not a military one. His empire continued till 50 more years. In 205 BC Greek emperor Antiocus attacked from north-west and established his rule in some parts (North-West: Punjab, Afghanistan). The bigger problem was from within the empire. This is related to Brahminical counter-reaction to the spread of Buddhism. Ashoka had put a ban on slaughter for rituals. This led to reduction in the income of Brahmans. The spread of Buddhism led to the erosion of Varna-caste system. What the communal forces are calling as Vedic religion is as such the dominant stream which was prevalent then: Brahmanism.

These factors led to the counter revolution. Pushyamitra Shung, a Brahman, the chief commander of Brihadrath, who was Ashok’s grandson, led the counter revolution. He killed the emperor and founded the Shunga dynasty in Sindh part of Ashoka’s empire. The counter-revolution led to the disappearance of Buddhism from this land. Ambedkar writes: “Emperor Ashoka proclaimed complete ban on killing animals. So nobody engaged Brahmans to perform rites and rituals. The Brahman priests were rendered jobless. They also lost their former importance and glory. So the Brahmans revolted against the Mauryan emperor Brihadrath under the leadership of Pushyamitra Shung, a samvedi Brahmin and the army chief of Brihadrath.” (Writings and Speeches, Vol 3 P 167).

Eighth century onwards Shankara led the ideological battle against the philosophy of Buddhism. Buddhism urged the people to focus on life in this world. The Shankara’s philosophy called this world as illusion and restored Brahmanism here in full glory. Due to ideological and social counter-revolution Buddhism disappeared from this land around 1200 AD.

So why is Ashoka’s reign coming under criticism now? Ashoka embraced Buddhism and this was a setback to the Brahmanical system. Brahmanism is the dominant part of Hindu religion as understood today. Ashoka talked of non-violence and promoted pluralism. All these stand totally against the Hindu nationalist agenda of sectarian nationalism where violence is part of politics. Hindutva wants to promote neo-Brahmanical values. So on one hand there is the attempt to co-opt Dalits and other hand the aim is to keep the ideological message of social hierarchy loud and clear and so Buddhism is attacked.

The casteless ideology of Buddhism and the accompanying respect for pluralism and peace are being attacked as a part of Hindu nationalist agenda. The garb in which it is being presented is "weakening of India" due to non-violence. As such Mauryan was an empire, not a nation state, empires rise and fall due to social political factors of the time. Despite adopting non-violence Ashoka's empire continued well till 50 more years. The weakness starts coming in due to Brahmanical counter-revolution. The forays of communalists in the ancient Indian history are an attempt more to denigrate the Buddhist values under the garb of attacking Ashoka.   

The post Did Ashoka’s embracing of Buddhism and Promoting Ahimsa Weaken India? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

KARNATAKA

While serving as a police officer at various levels of the police hierarchy — as the SP of a district, as DIG, the commissioner of police, Bangalore and as the DGP — I have had to handle many major communal crises situations. And I have always felt that our ability to react to or control such a situation hinges crucially on our long–term efforts to be part of the community in the normal course of our policing work. 

We need to instil confidence in our force by the calibre of our response. It is how I react to complaints from the community — even if it be the story of a minor theft that will determine whether or not ordinary people will have the faith to approach me, come to me. Whether or not I can communicate with them at times of a crisis is crucial.

I would agree that the image of the police in general on the issue of fair and neutral controlling of communally driven violence has taken a severe bashing. I am with you on that one. There is an urgent need to resurrect not just our image but drastically alter our attitude to regain confidence, rebuild our reputation and image among the entire citizenry. 

Why do communal flare-ups occur? Communal flare–ups are essentially caused by a lack of faith between peoples of different communities. It is when faith is ruptured, by vested interests, by people who want to exploit emotions and ignorance that such violence breaks out. At such a time, whatever be the cause of the conflagration, a strong and inspiring leadership is required.

I was commissioner of police, Bangalore for two years and seven months. Each year December 6, 1992 is observed as a Black Day, a day when emotions run high. Each year, sections of our people need to recall the Babri Masjid demolition. This is natural because they were hurt deeply by that act. It is a day of mourning when many would also like to take advantage of these sentiments to splash the streets with posters and pamphlets and placards, the contents of which are not always unimpeachable. 

Now under these circumstances, who should dissuade them, who should take it upon themselves to tell them that though the day and deed was extremely unfortunate, some self–regulation displayed by the leaders of the community would be in the interests of the community itself?

I faced this dilemma as a senior police functionary every year. Groups of Muslims would announce it as a Black Day and plan programmes. I evolved a simple principle of action. I built direct communication links with the community and attempted, successfully, to persuade them, in their own self–interest, to protest with restraint. The approach worked. 

I had Muslim women, accompanied by social workers from the area, waiting to meet me in the late hours of the night, waiting to take me along, to meet, to shake hands with and to pat the backs of young and angry Muslim youth. We tried, earnestly, and always together with members of their own community to dissuade them against rash acts. It worked.

I recall another incident that occurs with chilling finality every year during Bakri Id and Mahavir Jayanti — two festivals that come within days of each other! 

In 1999, they happened to fall on the same day!  Now Muslims believe in offering sacrifice of a camel or a goat on that day. Part of their faith is in making this sacrifice and distributing the meat. Therefore, we must respect it as a religious practice. 

Some twenty years ago, someone had issued a circular stating that there should be no sale of meat on Mahavir Jayanti. While Muslims are committed to slaughter on that day, Hindus and Jains are determined to stop the practice. Now in the midst of the kind of political situation that we face today, both sides are willing to fight a pitched battle. For a policeman in charge, the question is how do I avert a catastrophe?

The most important thing for us to understand is that during such trying and tense circumstances, when we face two or more very sensitive communities, particularly those living in congested urban areas, no amount of police bandobast or police deployment is the answer. That is not going to solve the problem, we simply cannot have a policeman behind everybody. Neither can we get into the heart of everyone.
What we can do, however, is to keep channels of communication and dialogue open. This is what we did in 1999 and the people of Bangalore, of all communities, will testify to this. For three–four weeks, the Bangalore police were engaged in continuous dialogue, in constant street–level, mohalla–level dialogue with the people to promote a resolution, to prevent a breakdown into violence.

The principle we followed was simple. Muslims and Jains both said that they had deep respect for each other. How then, we asked, do we get pushed and reduced to such intransigent positions?
We encouraged regular, intense but public dialogue between respectable people of both communities, from the mohalla level right up to the state level, finally the discussions resonated even in the Vidhan Soudha.

How did this happen? We discussed the principles of both faiths, their essence, what could be negotiated, what must be held sacred. For the Jains, on Mahavir Jayanti, what is prohibited is the slaughter of living beings. For the Muslims, this slaughter need not be done in public. What is banned for the Jains is the eating of meat, which is a private part of their religious belief. Also, for Jains, the believers in the non–violence of Mahavira, peace must be a primary objective, and to arrive at a position satisfactory to both sides must be the goal.

Therefore, to ensure peace between two different sets of believers, we must have a bit of sacrifice on both sides. Why not do the slaughter, which symbolises sacrifice in private, and do the distribution of meat only the following day? For the Muslims, we said that since sacrifice is a must, it must be done at home. At moments like these, accommodation and tolerance must guide both sides; blatant provocation must be avoided.

We found after heated deliberations that provocations are often created and fomented, they are not essentially there. 

After three to four weeks of hard work, we were rewarded with a mammoth gathering at the Idgah Maidan where 15,000 Muslims had gathered. For the first time in the history of the city, and in my experience serving as a policeman, it was a Jain priest who recited the first prayer on the morning of Bakri Id. It was a prayer to non-violence. After this, a joint delegation of Muslims and Jains paid a visit to the then governor, Khurshid Aslam Khan. And once again, later the same day, Hindus and Muslims participated in joint celebrations.

A prominent leader from the Jain community addressed the gathering, took them into confidence, explaining how peace was found. Then he and his Muslim counterpart exchanged their traditional headgear, with the Muslim donning a turban and the Hindu wearing a prayer cap.

It is when every community celebrates the other’s festival that one community starts feeling responsible for the other community. We were able to celebrate non-violence in a socially vibrant manner through community leaders, not merely by uttering it as a matter of principle.

These kinds of achievements require dynamism and foresight from the police. Communities must receive the message from the topmost level in the force: Gurdwara or masjid, he is there, he is available, he is our man. Every community loves and wants the police chief to be there. Do we send out the message that we are theirs? 

A smile and warm shake of the hand is all they want; unfortunately, too few of us wish to extend these simple gestures that are deeply felt by people.

Another time comes to mind. It was 1998, Bangalore. Jaya-nagar is the biggest urban extension in Asia. It is an affluent area that has a prominent road leading up to a very busy shopping complex. In the midst of this razzmatazz, there is a site, with an Idgah with attached land piled up with rubble. The administration had wanted to remove this for the past three decades; Muslims had been resisting, demanding a kabrastan (graveyard) there.

To be honest, the demand for a graveyard at this location was illogical. The obstruction is ugly, it obstructs the road. But it is an accident of development; not part of any deliberate design of the Muslims to cause accidents as it began to be portrayed by some forces!

Now on that day in 1998, a girl, Janaki Laxmi Bai, was hit by a state transport bus and, unfortunately, she died on the spot. I was on my daily rounds with the joint commissioner and we reached the spot after messages about the usual agitated, post-accident crowd gathered were beeped to us. Knowing the history of this dispute, familiar with the patterns of public behaviour, we arrived there expecting the worst. 

By the time we reached there, tensions had escalated, dialogue between the two sides had ceased and the throwing of stones had begun. There were rumours of a mosque being desecrated that angered the Muslims. And there were rumours on the other side that Muslims had gathered inside the mosque to attack Hindus. 

We talked to both sides, incessantly, sitting on the bonnet much against the advice of our officers who warned us that we could get hurt in the stone pelting. Now a policeman in charge on the spot, in the midst of a heated situation, simply has to take the risk. I was clear about my motives when I spoke to the crowd gathered. I am not going to leave by simply dispersing the crowd, that would be too easy, I told them. I am not a road builder but I am with you and I want to be with you, with both sides, to solve the problem, I added.

The mosque was vacated by the Muslims themselves and rumours thus dispelled. All the Muslims and Hindus that had gathered there went with us to a nearby club to discuss the matter through. The first bits that emerged through rational discussion was that over the years, a total of 10 deaths had taken place because of the traffic obstruction. But this had been distorted by some forces to spread the propaganda that 100 people had died!

During our conversations at the club, the first thing I did was to telephone the chief minister and insist that we, the entire delegation, wanted to meet him because we wanted an intervention at the very highest levels. We also insisted that we required swift and prompt action from him. After establishing within the group that the matter was urgent, requiring solution, we went over the respective positions on both sides. I first spoke to both the sides separately.

The Muslims spoke. On the site there stood an ancient dargah, in the adjoining land there were old graves, we simply want to confirm and assert our rights over the land, they said. But, as far as the road widening is concerned, we too are citizens and would like to see it made possible.

Then we spoke to the other side. We had to be careful and sensitive. We had to settle the issue without making them feel that Muslims had been favoured.  On the other hand, if it was decided at the end of discussions to hand over the land for the Bangalore Municipal Corporation Muslims should not feel they had been bulldozed!

In this case, the land had been transferred to the Waqf Board after a former Maharaja of the city had gifted the land where the Idgah stands for prayers. Therefore, Muslims had legitimate and legal control of the land. But despite this history, allegations of ‘appeasement’’ of Muslims were deliberately spread by a certain element within the Hindus. They wanted to make a propaganda that prime property of 10–15 acres right in the middle of town was with the Muslims!

Therefore, the secret and sensitive negotiations that carried on well past midnight were critical. Due to the sincerity and sensitivity of our efforts, a 30–year–old problem, a flash point, that had been the cause of several riots and dozens of deaths, was finally solved. 

How did we do it? The flash point, in this case, the irritant was itself removed. How? The Muslim leaders took it upon themselves to convince the whole community that their legal and rightful claims to the land was being given up in the civic interests of the city. The whole process took thirty days, but the files were kept secret. 

Decisions were taken silently and secretly but different sections of the leadership, down to the ground level, were apprised of the top–level decisions each and every day. They were kept in confidence to minimise distrust and avoid any speculation that leads to rumours and outright tension.

I must add that the media, the press, also displayed very good sense because we took them into confidence. They did not get into the by-line competition by publishing sensational and ‘exclusive’ news! No speculative news reports appeared in that tense period.

It was a great diplomatic exercise for me, a police officer used to functioning differently. Do you know what many of my close Muslim friends said to me after the crisis was settled through a mutually agreeable settlement? They said, “The commissioner of police should be sent as India’s ambassador to Pakistan!”

What was the key to the solution? We had to be patient. We had to be clear and make it clear to all concerned that we were not in an indecent hurry, that there could be no instant solutions. Both sides had to be listened to but fair play and justice could not be sacrificed.

The result of the goodwill that I have earned through all these efforts is this. When I go, dressed in my uniform, to attend Id celebrations every year in Bangalore, I am overwhelmed by the cordiality and warmth with which I am received. If you were to see it, it would bring tears to your eyes. 

The minority in any society is a particularly insecure community. There is a feeling of insecurity among them in our country. And are we really surprised, given the circumstances? The best thing that we can do under the circumstances is to ensure with a fair and open heart and mind that at all times they have access to and experience proximity with the powers that be. 

If, as commissioner of police I go to them, be among them, my subordinates, too, will go. If I go, I will be first–hand witness to what happens there, they would honour me because there is so much warmth. It is this kind of intermingling that builds trust and cordiality between citizens and the police. And this is what is lacking among the police, the desire to build long–term and solid foundations of trust and respect. The police in general lack this sensitivity, unfortunately.

When I left Bangalore as CP and assumed my next post as DG (prisons), the goodwill and trust that I had earned followed me there. Do you know how? My best friends from all communities followed me to the prisons: Christmas, Id and Sankrant began to be celebrated there. The humanitarian work from all three communities flowed into the prisons I was in charge of. There were 30-40 NGOs with whom I worked closely.

I still remember the day when I handed over charge as CP of Bangalore. I was simply overwhelmed by the sentiments expressed by the more than hundred Muslims who came to see me. There were 50–60 cars belonging to members of the community lined up outside my office; they had come to present sweets to me. But what touched me most was when they took me to the mosque to pray for me and to give me blessings! I felt one of them and they trusted me as one of theirs.

This kind of trust can be created only when they are sure that we will stand by them. The police simply must stand by all sections of the population. When a Muslim or Christian woman experiences fair treatment and justice, the sentiment slowly grows into how the whole community feels. This sort of building of confidences cannot come overnight. But once this is done, it can be of immense help to a policeman whenever there is a burning issue, because your access to the community is already assured.

The only way to get there is to pass the test. We cannot be self–seekers, not carry or convey the arrogance of authority. We need to be available at all times whenever access is requested. The leader of the force, the man in charge of the thana, the sub-divisional officer, SP or CP – each one of us must think he is the one for this job. Expectations from within on each one of us, of ourselves, must be high!
When frenzy breaks out, the lack of faith that this violence manifests must be restored by the police. It is such a small thing but so difficult! Actually it is a very big thing! Whoever the officer is and wherever he is placed, must be just and seen to be just! There must be no room for rumours to spread!

December 6, 1992 is a bad dream for the community that haunts its consciousness. On that fateful day, I was serving as IG with the Karnataka Detectives Corps department, an equivalent of the CID. I was an officer working in plainclothes. 

But when things started going out of hand, I was asked to go to Mangalore, a very communally sensitive town. Earlier, some BJP MLAs had been elected from here but they were defeated in the recent elections, in 1992. In 1990, there had been communal trouble in Purakkal, following the rathyatra. After December 6, 1992, there was a three-day riot in Mangalore. That’s when I was sent there because I had been DIG there previously and my close relations, oneness and bonds, with all sides, had remained intact. 

It is so critical at times of communal frenzy to reinforce the bonds that bind us. Because at times like these, the very forces that hold us together get weakened! And the cancerous cell of suspicion and venom eats into the fabric. 

I remember the day I reached Mangalore three days after the demolition. People were burning vehicles! What did I do? From morning to evening all I did was talking, and more talking. Simply talking. Endless talking. What did I want to convey through this talking? That we are not for violence, we are not for settling matters through force. It required a lot of patience. It was exhausting. I addressed some 20–25 meetings. What I desired was simple — communication lines should be kept alive, human relationships must survive such crises.

An agitated mob acts like one body but it is a scattered brain that functions with irrational and disparate acts. Some parts are talking, others are stabbing, yet others are throwing stones. It is the innocent ones at the front who get sacrificed.

Anyway, after reaching Mangalore, 95 per cent of situation was controlled within 24 hours. Unfortunately, it was only in one pocket that we failed. My men were getting injured; we shot and killed a man. It was unfortunate but the right decision at the time. Eventually my instinct, built on experience to talk and keep talking was justified. Within 36–40 hours the dialogue paid dividends. In 90 per cent of the case, it is only dialogue that pays dividends. Only in 10 per cent of the cases do we need to use force.

Maintaining this balance is crucial, between the two options. But for me to carry the weight of my decisions — to dialogue and not use force — my policemen should have faith in me. This faith can only be established, if at ticklish and dangerous times, a senior policeman leads from the front. 

In Mangalore, I was in the front. I could have been killed but if I remained in the rear, I would have inspired no faith. It is when you are in the intimate know of things that the decisions you make are made with careful calculation. In Mangalore, too, the decision was made. Conciliation, was the first option; only if this failed, would force be used.

A mob in a communally volatile situation is schizophrenic. It often needs to be administered a shock and it is the different reactions that need to be balanced and acted upon. 
It was after this that I came to Bangalore! I see myself as a policeman but also as a community man, in charge of a sensitive post and department with a special responsibility. A policeman is the visible face of the state, so he is always being watched carefully for his attitudes and behaviour. 

I believe that I must appear as a sensitive human being at all times. So what if I am a very orthodox Hindu, who after pooja applies the vibhuti on my forehead? But this sign of my faith should not be visible outside. The arms of the state should not only be secular, but also look secular. To imbibe these values in the police force, the quality of training within the police is vital. Once this sensitive pattern of behaviour is followed, it comes naturally.

My motto as a police officer was simple. Be it Id or Christmas, Diwali or the St Mary’s procession, I would never miss the opportunity to cement my relationship with people from that community. A relationship built at this level percolates down to every level. You are also in the process, demonstrating to your subordinates how a situation should be handled.

A communal situation, in a way is different, even abnormal: people go mad! My neighbour suddenly thinks he should burn my house and neighbourhood, even though through all the earlier years, including times of crises in my life, he has been with me!

Hence it is critical to keep communications open with all sides of the spectrum at such a time. I have been criticised sometimes in meeting with groups like the Hindu Jagran Vedike. But for me it was important to have contact with them if I was to retain the strength to dialogue with them.
In a communal situation especially, the police officer at the helm has to be prepared to lead from the front, to take risks. Only then can he win the confidence of the people warring with each other. Nobody will come forward to offer their necks unless you are prepared to risk yours!

The post Cop as community worker appeared first on SabrangIndia.