The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), after its recent visit to Jharkhand to verify the various complaints it received from individuals and groups, has come out with the startling finding that innocent tribal youths have been cheated by making them surrender as ‘naxalites’.

Image Courtesy: Times of India

The infamous ‘surrender policy’ of the government advocates that apart from a govt job, a surrendered Naxal is entitled to get an amount ranging from Rs.1.5 lakh to 2.5 lakh. For the tribal youth whose small pieces of agricultural land are being forcibly taken over by the government and corporate houses in the name of ‘development’ and with hardly any job opportunities in their rural set up, any possibility of getting some job assumes first priority. So when the police and their agents entice some of these innocent tribal youth with this false promise, they fall for it. This is nothing short of a crime committed by the government against the poorest of the poor.

Who are responsible for this cheating game? NHRC Report affirms that some senior Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) officers conniving with some Jharkhand police officers have been organising these ‘fake surrenders’ to take advantage of the attractive ‘Naxalite Surrender’ policy. This opens up possibilities of getting awards and even getting promotions for playing out this fraud on the poor tribal youths.

Some middle men were also roped in who contacted the simple innocent tribals, lured them with promise of jobs and in return even took big sums of money from them. Many of the surrendered youths had sold off their personal belongings like motorcycles and land to arrange for the money to secure the promised job. This money was allegedly shared with CRPF and police officers. These tribal youths were then lodged in the old central jail of Ranchi who then discovered that there were many many more tribals like them were also cheated and trapped.
A senior Officer who discovered this anomaly wrote to the Director General of Police pointing out the seriousness of what was happening. But no action was taken until the NHRC brought to light this disgusting state of affairs.

Where did the arms come from? These 514 youths were picked up from different parts of Jharkhand in police vehicles and a ‘surrender show’ was arranged to show as though they had surrendered with arms. The intriguing question is where did these arms actually come from?

It is now common knowledge that the police always have some arms ready and make a show as though the surrendering ‘naxals’ are surrendering their arms (using in facts arms already available with the police).

It is even worse with regard to those ‘naxals’ who have been ‘arrested’. They are brought before the media persons, their heads are covered, the police officers sit in front of them and on a table placed before them are some weapons exhibited with the caption that these were recovered from the ‘captured naxals’.

Both the electronic and print media unquestioningly publicise this drama and the general public accepts the police version as the gospel truth. Studies on undertrial prisoners reveal that most of those arrested almost on a daily basis are innocent youth. But they are poor and therefore very vulnerable to this type of persecution.

No action taken despite the disclosure:  Even when an honest police officer found out the anomaly and made it known to a senior police officer, no action has been taken.

Call for justice
The CRPF and Police Officers who are guilty of this crime against the poorest of the poor must be brought to justice. The victims must be rehabilitated and adequately compensated. The following steps would need to be taken:

• A judicial commission must be appointed to probe this crime. It certainly cannot be left to the local government or the police dept because they will whitewash the whole affair. After all, the fence will not eat the crop!
• The police officers and their middle-men who had cheated the tribal youth must be identified and their names made public.
• The cash that was collected from the tribal youth must be returned to them with interest. This amount may be taken from the personal savings/PF of these officers who are found guilty of committing this crime.
• A just compensation to the tribal youth for the  economic, social hardship they have suffered because of this widespread cheating game must be offered. The amount shouldbe at least Rs. 5 lakhs.
• The non-tribal police officers and their middle men must be prosecuted under The SC and The ST(Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989,  and (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act 2015.
• Clear safeguards must be provided to these tribal youth so they will not in any way be harassed in future.

The innocent tribal youth have suffered a serious injustice. Justice must be done to them. After all, justice is truth in action.

Background

"Prima facie, the allegations were found to be true. The probe report has been sent to the Ministry of Home Affairs and also the state government. Further action would be taken following their comments," said HL Dattu, chairperson of the NHRC, speaking to the media.
 
The case, pertaining to stage-managing of fake ‘surrender’ of well over hundred ‘naxal-operatives’ in 2011-12, had come to light in 2014. An FIR was also registered in this regard in March 2014. The state government had later recommended CBI inquiry into the case. But nothing moved forward. The NHRC also took cognisance of the matter and got a probe done by its own division.

It is alleged that CRPF, state police and military intelligence officials had connived to boost the surrender figures by promising jobs to unsuspecting youths and making them pose as naxal-operatives.

The chairperson also said that the Commission has given the state CID three months to complete its investigation and submit a report before it in connection with the Palamu encounter in which 12 people, including minor children, were killed in June 2015. The NHRC, however, has not recommended any compensation so far in the case.
 
 
 

The post Fence Eating the Crop ! NHRC Finds Fake ‘Naxalite-Surrenders’ in Jharkhand appeared first on SabrangIndia.

एक  ऐसे माहौल में जब देश के सुरक्षा ठिकानों पर पाकिस्तान से आये आतंकवादियों के हमले हो रहे  हौं, भाजपा प्रशसित हरियाणा और महाराष्ट्र जातिवादी आग से झुलस रहे हौं, दलितों और अल्पसंख्याकों हमले बेतहाशा बढ़ रहे हूँ, महँगाई व बेरोज़गारी हदें पर  कर  चुके हौं और महिलाओं पर जघनय अपराध आम हो गए हौं  मोदी ने देश की  सब से बड़ी 'समस्या'  भारतीय मुसलमानों पर, हिंदुत्व के एक विचारक दीनदयाल उपाध्याय की  मार्फ़त, एक बार फिर हमला बोला।  याद रहे की दीनदयाल स्वयं भी देश के  मुसलमानों को जीवन भर 'एक जटिल समस्या' मानते रहे।  मीडिया की रपटों के अनुसार मोदी ने दीनदयाल को उद्धृत करते हुवे कहा : 'मुसलमानो  को न पुरस्कृत करो न फटकारो। उन्हें सशक्त बनाओ।  वे न तो वोट मंडी की वस्तु हैं और न ही  घिर्णा के  पात्र। उन्हें अपना समझो।'  इन रपटों का सब से शर्मनाक पहलू यह था की मोदी ने 'सशक्त' शब्द का प्रयोग न करके दीनदयाल के मूल शब्द 'परिष्कार’ का इस्तेमाल किया  था जिस मतलब होता है ' साफ़/शुद्ध/शुद्धि' करना लेकिन मीडिया ने इसे 'सशक्त' में बदल दिया। अंग्रेज़ी मीडिया ने ऐसा किया तो समझ में आ सकता  है की उसने 'परिष्कार’ का अर्थ अंग्रेज़ी  में 'सशक्त'  कर दिया लेकिन हिंदी मीडिया ने मोदी दुवारा बोले गए 'परिष्कार’ शब्द को 'सशक्त' में क्यों बदला समझ से परे है , इस  का एक ही  कारण हो सकता है कि हिंदी मीडिया मोदी के मुसलमानों के बारे में फासीवादी विचारों  पर पर्दा डालना चाह रहा हो।    

प्रधान मंत्री मोदी दुवारा दोहराए गए दीनदयाल के शब्द दर-असल  मुसलमानों के बारे  में  आरएसएस की घिर्णा  को ही  ज़ाहिर करते हैं।  उन्हों ने 'सांस्कृतिक राष्ट्रवाद' का नारा जिस का  मतलब था कि भारत एक हिन्दू राष्ट्र है  जिस में केवल हिंदुओं को रहने का अधिकार है।  उन्हों ने गोलवलकर और सावरकर की तरह मुसलमानों और ईसाईयों  हिन्दू राष्ट्र का अंग मानने से इनकार कर दिया और कहा कि वे तभी इस देश में रह सकते हैं अगर वे, 'इस देश की  सदियों पुरानी राष्ट्रिय सांस्कृतिक धारा जो हिन्दू संस्कृति की धरा है के साथ एक रूप हौं।  इस मुद्दे पर किसी भी तरह का समझौता नहीं हो सकता।'
 
दीनदयाल ने 'मुसलमान: एक जटिल समस्या' शीर्षक से एक निबंध लिखा जिस में भारतीय मुसलमानों को समान भारतीय नागरिक के तौर  पर नहीं बल्कि उन्हें 'एक पुरानी, रोज़  जटिल होती समस्या' की  संज्ञा दी।  उन के अनुसार हिंदुस्तानी मुसलमानों के बीच 'पाकिस्तान से हमदर्दी रखने वाला दिमाग़ कभी भी नहीं बदला।' ईसाई  भी उनके अनुसार देश के नागरिक नहीं बल्कि एक और समसया थे। दीनदयाल के अनुसार 'सांझी संस्कृति'  या 'सब का देश' जैसी कोई वस्तु  नहीं होती है। वे मुसलमानों और ईसाईयों को अल्पसंख्याक मानने के  के लिए भी तैयार नहीं थे।    

ऐसा समझना कि दीनदयाल केवल मुसलमान और ईसाई विरोधी थे उन से इन्साफ करना नहीं होगा।  वे हिंदुत्वादी राजनीती में खुल्ला विश्वास करते थे जिस का स्वभाविक मतलब था कि  वे प्रजातान्त्रिक-धर्मनिरपेक्ष भारत को हिन्दू राष्ट्र में परिवर्तित करना चाहते थे जहाँ 'मनुस्मृति' का  राज  होगा।  वे ग़ैर-बराबरी के झंडा-बरदार थे।  वे मुसलमानों और ईसाइयों को बहरी तत्व मानते थे लेकिन बौद्ध, सिख, जैन जैसे भारत में मौजूद धर्मों को स्वतंत्र धर्म न मानकर सनातन हिन्दू धर्म का ही अंग मानते  थे।  वे जातिवाद के उपासक थे और आरएसएस के किसी भी विचारक के तौर  पर जातिवाद को हिन्दू धर्म और हिन्दू राष्ट्र की रीढ़ की  हड्डी मानते थे।  उनको इस बात का ज्ञान था की जातिवाद एक घृणित शब्द और संस्था है तो  उन्हों ने इस के एक नई  परिभाषा दी–'हालांकी आधुनिक जगत में समानता  के नारे लगाए  जाते  हैं, फिर भी समानता की  अवधारणा को विवेक के साथ स्वीकारना चाहिए।  हमारा वास्तविक अनुभव यह ही  बताता है कि वयवहारिक और भौतिक नज़रिये के हिसाब  से दो अलग एक समान  नहीं हो सकते।  भले ही लोगों के अलग-अलग गुण  होते हौं और उनके गुणों अवं रुचियों के हिसाब से उन्हें भले अलग-अलग काम  सौंपे जाएँ, सभी  काम एक समान रूप में  सम्मानित होते हैं।  इसे  स्वधर्म कहते हैं और यह साफ़ बताया गया है की स्वधर्म का  पालन ही  ईश्वर की सेवा है'।  अब  जातिवाद 'स्वधर्म' था  जिस  को आप ने स्वयं मानना था ताकी  ईश्वर की  आज्ञा का  पालन हो।     

दीनदयाल ने अंग्रेजों के खिलाफ स्वतंत्र आंदोलन की कड़े शब्दों में इस लिए निंदा की कियों की इस के दौरान 'लगातार यह कोशिश की गयी की हिन्दू, मुस्लमान और ईसाई सब 'देशवासी' हैं और इन्  सब को मिलाकर अंग्रेजों के ख़िलाफ़  एक सांझी  ताक़त बनाने का  प्रयास किया गया।' यक़ीनन यह ही वजह थी  की आरएसएस ने कभी भी अँगरेज़ विरोधी मुक्ति-आंदोलन का साथ नहीं दिया और ना ही आरएसएस का कोई नेता/विचारक कार्यकर्ता जेल गया।  याद रहे दीनदयाल ने 1942 में आरएसएस की सदस्यता ली  जब भारत छोड़ो आंदोलन के तहत सारे देश में भयानक दमन चल रहा था लेकिन आरएसएस दुवारा  प्रकाशित उनकी जीवनियों से साफ़ पता चलता है की उन्हों ने इस आंदोलन में क़तई हिस्सा नहीं लिया।  
दीनदयाल जीवन भर इस बात पर ज़ोर देते रहे की भारत का  मौजूद संविधान हिंदुत्व की मान्यताओं के खिलाफ है और इस को रद्द  कर देना चाहिए।  उन्हों ने संविधान से संघवादी (federal) अवधारणाओं को निकाल बहार करने की मांग की और भारत को एक एकात्मक राज्य घोषित करने की लगातार मांग की। वे देश के तिरंगे झंडे की जगह भगवा झंडा चाहते थे।

प्रधान मंत्री मोदी या आरएसएस/भाजपा के नेता दीनदयाल को याद करते हुवे उनकी  दर्दनाक और रहस्मय मौत के बारे में चुप्पी लगाए हुवे हैं।  उनका शव मुग़लसराय रेलवे स्टेशन पर फ़रवरी 11, 1968 को  रेल की पटरियों पर पड़ा मिला था।  आरएसएस के एक वरिष्ठ प्रचारक बलराज मधोक ने अपनी  आत्मकथा (ज़िन्दगी का सफर-3, पृष्ठ 22 ) में साफ़ लिखा है की, 'उनकी हत्या किसी किराये  के  हत्यारे से करवाई गयी।  परंतु हत्या करवाने वाले षड्यंत्रकारी संघ-जनसंघ के महत्वाकांक्षी प्रवर्ति के लोग थे।' मधोक ने कुछ नाम भी लिए हैं।  मौजूद आरएसएस/बीजेपी सरकार  को हिंदुत्व के इस महान योद्धा के क़तल के पीछे जिन हिंदुत्वादी नेताओं का हाथ था उन के नंबर में देश को विश्वास में लेना चाहिए।   

The post दीनदयाल उपाध्याय के बहाने भारतीय मुसलमानों की शुद्धि appeared first on SabrangIndia.

He was also a leader of from the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh(RSS) who died a mysterious death

PM Modi is a senior seasoned swayamsevak of the RSS who describes himself as ‘a Hindu nationalist’ and, moreover, misses no opportunity to denigrate the minorities of India especially Muslims.

The latest such attempt was, when on September 25, 2016 while addressing a national level BJP conclave at Kozhikode, Kerala he did not forget to share his belief with his captive audience about Muslims being the ‘other’ or ‘different from ‘us’ borrowing directly from ideas buried deep with the archival reserves of the RSS.

For him Muslims were not like any other citizen of India but a problem and to put across his message with more clarity he quoted a senior ideologue of the RSS, Deendayal Upadhyaya (1916-1968).[i]

According to Modi:
“Fifty years ago, Pandit Upadhyaya said 'do not reward/appease (puraskrit) Muslims, do not shun (tiraskrit) them but purify (parishkar) them'. Do not treat Muslims like vote ki mandi ka maal (vote banks) or ghrina ki vastu (object of hatred). Unhe apna samjho (regard them as your own)"[ii]

This statement of Modi was widely reported by media.

But the most shocking aspect of this reportage was, how, that one Hindi word ‘parishkar’ which means ‘to purify’ was conveniently changed to ‘empowerment’ by India’s English media and ‘sashaktikaran’ by the Hindi media.

Even media houses which are, by and large, regarded as objective did it[iii]and same was with the print media[iv] except a few exceptions like The Tribune and The Telegraph.

Critically, in none of the Hindi/Sanskrit to English dictionaries is the word ‘parishkar’ translated as ‘empowerment’.

Why large sections of the media indulged in this creative mis-representation – in, actually, completely changing the meaning of a word actually spoken by the prime minister, Modi, is not difficult to explain. The media, within India, has set itself a unique project : present Modi as a great democrat despite his overt leanings towards a theocratic authoritanisam (Hindutva and anti-democratic).

What was the context within which Modi chose these words of wisdom specifically about Indian Muslims?

India’s defences are being breached by terrorists from Pakistan (Pathankot and Uri) in which dozens of brave India soldiers have laid down their lives, different parts of the country like Gujarat, Haryana and Maharashtra are witnessing Caste-wars; conflicts over water have caused unrest and violence in Karnataka and Tamilnadu.  The Muslim minority and Dalits across the country are facing unparalleled persecution by viggilante groups that owe ideological affinity with the RSS; arguably, heinous crimes against women have been on a sharp increase, unemployment and rise in prices are at an all time high (if you look at the past five year index). In the midst of all of this, the prime minister Modi, instead of speaking on these critical issues chose the occasion of his party’s national executive, to speak about ‘Muslims’.

In quoting Deendayal Updhyaya, he made his view and that of his government on India’s largest minority, clear. Interestingly, Deendayal was not against minorities –esspecially Muslims and Christians– only. As a zealot of Hindutva (and wedded to the ideal of a Hindu theocratic nation), and ideologue he believed in the Caste System and Structure; espoused the centralization of powers and defended the non-participation of the Hindutva rightwing in anti-British freedom struggle. He propounded the theory of ‘Cultural nationalism’ which is nothing but Hindu nationalism, a crucial programmatic aspect of the Hindutva ideology.

Muslims as a ‘complex problem’
It is to be remembered that Deendayal throughout his life treated Muslims not as equal citizens and part of Indian polity but as a ‘complex problem’. According to him,
“after independence many important problems had to be faced by the government, the political parties and the people…But the Muslim problem is the oldest, the most complicated and it assumes ever-new forms. This problem has been facing us for the last twelve hundred years.”[v]
This hatred for Indian Muslims was, in fact, a continuation of Hindutva brigade’s inimical attitude towards Islam and Muslims. The most prominent ideologue of the RSS, MS Golwalkar who personally groomed Deendayal as a politician had earlier described Muslims as ‘Internal Threat No. 1’. Christians were declared to be ‘Internal Threat No. 2’.[vi]According to him these two communities could not be described as minorities.

Defence of Casteism
Deendayal was a votary of Casteism describing it as not only natural but also practical. He went to the extent of equating it with swadharma (one’s own religion). In fact, he declared inequality to be natural to human society, thus treating Casteism also as a natural institution. Defending Casteism he said:
“Even though slogans of equality are raised in the modern world, the concept of equality has to be accepted with discretion. Our actual experience is that from the practical and material point of view, no two men are alike… Considerable bitterness could be avoided if the idea of equality as conceived by Hindu thinkers is studied more carefully. The first and basic premise is that even if men have different qualities and different kinds of duties allotted to them according to their qualities or aptitudes, all duties are equally dignified. This is called swadharma, and there is an unequivocal assurance that to follow swadharma is itself equivalent to the worship of God. So, in any duties performed to fulfill swadharma, the question of high and low, dignified and undignified does not arise at all. If the duty is done without selfishness, no blame attaches itself to the doer.”[vii]

Questioning the Freedom Struggle
Deendayal joined RSS when he was 26 years old and India was facing one of the most brutal repressions unleashed by the British rulers. Like any other leader or cadre of the RSS, Deendayal too did not participate in the freedom struggle for the obvious reason that it was a united struggle of people of all religions for a democratic-secular India and not an exclusive Hindu project. He denigrated the glorious freedom struggle in the following words:
“we were obsessed by the misleading notion that freedom consisted merely in overthrowing foreign rule. Opposition to a foreign government does not necessarily imply genuine love of Motherland…During the struggle for independence great emphasis was laid on the opposition to British rule…It came to be believed that whoever opposed the British was a patriot. A regular campaign was launched in those days to create utter dissatisfaction against the British by holding them responsible for every problem and misery which the people in our country had to face.”[viii]
 
Only Hindus Form the Nation
Deendayal did not subscribe to the idea of Indian nationalism and stood for Hindu nationalism. He refused to accept Muslims and Christians as co-nationalists despite residing in India for hundreds of years. According to him only Hindus could be the flag-bearers of Indian nationalism as only they worshipped the Motherland. For them Motherland was like the goddess Durga wielding ten weapons. Hindus formed a stable nation as only they had common view of life. For him,
“Hindutva alone is the basis of nationalism in Bharat […] It is altogether wrong for the Hindus to prove their nationhood by European standards. It has been accepted as axiomatic for thousands of years.”[ix]

Harmful Federalism
Deendayal like KB Hedgewar, founder of RSS and Golwalkar loved centralization of power and hated federalism as an integral part of Indian Constitution. According to him,
“ethos of Bharat is such that a Unitary form of government would fit in and that in the very first article of the Constitution, a clear statement that ‘Bharat shall be a Unitary State’ was essential.”[x]

Mysterious Death of Deendayal Upadhyaya
 On February 1, 1968, the dead body of Deendayal was found under mysterious circumstances at Mughalsarai railway station in eastern Uttar Pradesh. Late Balraj Madhok,
a senior RSS/Bhartiya Jan Sangh (BJS) leader who preceded Deendayal as president of Bhartiya JanaSangh, levelled serious allegations against a few of  his old colleagues of RSS/Jana Sangh for conspiring to kill Deendayal. In his autobiography he had stated:

“He was killed by a hired assassin. But conspirators who sponsored this killing were
those self-seekers and leaders with criminal bent of mind of Sangh-Jan Sangh”[i]

 
He went on to the extent of pointing fingers towards former Indian PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee and late Nana Deshmukh, a senior RSS ideologue, as the main conspirators in the murder of Deendayal.
 
According to the autobiography, the murder of Deendayal was not undertaken by Communists or some robber but planned by those who were kept out of the leading positions of the BJS by Deendayal as president. It is to be noted here that Deendayal after taking over as president of BJS fromBalraj Madhok in December 1967, had kept out both Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Nana Deshmukh from important posts.
 
According to Madhok, Deendayal was murdered because,
“he was constantly ensuring that ill-reputed people should get no career advancement in BJS, so that the reputation of the organization is not tarnished. For this reason, some characterless selfish people were finding him a stumbling blockin their path of self-seekingfulfillment.”[i]
 
It is really unfortunate that present RSS/BJP regime in India led by prime minister Modi, instead of strengthening Indian democratic-secular polity are busy resurrecting Hindutva ghosts and ideologues from the past which have been inimical to a composite and egalitarian polity.
 
Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya’s Hindutva politics needs to be confined to the dustbin of the past.

[1]Deendayal Upadhyaya hailed from a Brahmin family of Mathura district in UP, came in contact with RSS in 1937, became swayamsevak in 1942 was a loyal follower of Golwalkar who became its Sarsanghchalak in 1940. Deendayalas a whole timer of the organization figured prominently in the RSS hierarchy and held crucial posts. He was editor of RSS Hindi organs like Panchajanya and Swadesh, and his services were lent to Bhartiya Jana Sangh, the political outfit created by RSS. He rose to be the presidency (December 1967) of it but died on 1 February 1968, under mysterious circumstances at Mughalsarai railway station in eastern Uttar Pradesh.¹²²
 
[1]The Telegraph, Calcutta, September 26, 2016.
[1]http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/pm-narendra-modi-addresses-bjp-conclave-in-kozhikode-highlights-1466220
 
[1] http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/muslims-vote-bank-modi-bjp-pandit-deendayal-upadhyaya/
[1] BN Jog, Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya: Ideology & Perception-Politics for Nation’s Sake, vol. vi, Suruchi Prakashan, Delhi, 73. 
[1] MS Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts (chapter xvi), SS Prakashana, Bangalore, 177-195.
[1] C. P. Bhishikar, Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya: Ideology and Perception: Concept of the Rashtra,vol. v, Suruchi, Delhi, 169.
[1] Ibid., 11.
[1]Ibid., 27.
[1] Ibid., 179.

The post Get it Right: PM Modi Talked About ‘Purification’, Not ‘Empowerment’, of Muslims appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Expelled students part of anti-Modi sloganeering: Ambedkar University VC R C Sobti to HRD ministry

Amid a simmering controversy over the rustication of eight Dalit students after an alleged assault on a faculty member, the Vice Chancellor to Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University in Lucknow – Prof R C Sobti has written to the HRD ministry pointing out that the same students were also involved in sloganeering against PM Modi when he visited the varsity in January this year for its 6th Convocation. The Ambedkar University Dalit Students' Union has issued a statement condemning the "bramhinical hegemony and caste based prejudices of the administration" of the University and has said such actions against students "threatens their very existence in the academic spaces which are largely perceived as 'inclusive".

The Economic Times reports that in a status note communicated to the HRD ministry, the VC is learnt to have defended the University's action against the eight students citing repeated offences including that of disrupting the PM's visit with slogans on the Rohith Vemula issue.

Apart from the caste politics that has reared up on campus, there is power politics at play as well with the VC pointing fingers at the University Registrar Sunita Chandra in his communication to HRD. Chandra has said that she had nothing to do with the attack on faculty member Kamal Jaiswal while the VC refused to comment on the matter. The University's spokesperson, Prof Govind Pandey defended the varsity's action. "These students have been expelled earlier also due to unruly activities". This has however been challenged by the students. 

Unfortunately, they belong to one community but there is no caste colour to this. This is simply unruly behavior and goondaism. The VC has set up another committee to examine the issue again and give a fair chance to all the students," Pandey told the Economic Times. Faculty member Kamal Jaiswal -who was assaulted by a group of students on 7th September after a stormy high powered meeting held at the University-has already lodged a FIR.

"There is a larger conspiracy here. This is no Dalit conspiracy either-there are upper caste people also involved and I have named them in the FIR. These students have been used by them", Jaiswal told ET. Meanwhile, sensitivities are running high on the campus with various students organizations andtheir political affiliates taking up the matter. The varsity has banned all protests on campus.

There are also misgivings about some organizations- to which Jaiswal is affiliated- recently going to court challenging special quota provisions at the University. The BBAU is the only Central University admits up to 50 per cent students from the SC/ST community.

The post Controversy Over Dalit Students Being Expelled Only Over Anti-Modi Sloganeering appeared first on SabrangIndia.

गुड़गांव। मनोहर लाल खट्टर ने हरियाणा के मुख्यमंत्री पद की गरिमा को तार-तार कर दिया है। सीएम खट्टर ने कहा कि मेवात में दोहरे हत्याकांड, दो बहनों से गैंगरेप और बिरयानी में गोमांस के आरोपों में पुलिस की छापेमारी जैसी घटनाएं छोटे मुद्दे हैं और ऐसी घटनाएं देश में कहीं भी घट सकती हैं।
 
जानकारी के मुताबिक यहां राज्य के तौर पर हरियाणा की 50वीं वर्षगांठ के मौके पर एक आयोजन में जब मुख्यमंत्री खट्टर से पत्रकारों ने मेवात गैंगरेप मामले और बीफ विवाद में सीबीआई जांच के बारे में पूछा तो उन्होंने कहा, 'ये कोई मुद्दे नहीं हैं। मैं ऐसे छोटे मुद्दों पर ज्यादा ध्यान नहीं देता। आज हमें स्वर्ण जयंति के बारे में बात करनी चाहिए।' जब उनसे फिर से इस बारे में पूछ गया तो खट्टर ने कहा, 'स्वर्ण जयंति समारोह की तुलना में यह बहुत छोटे मामले हैं और देश में कहीं भी हो सकते हैं।'
 
बता दें कि मेवात में 24 अगस्त को एक 20 वर्षीय महिला और उसकी 14 साल की बहन के साथ उन्हीं के घर में घुस आए कई लोगों ने गैंगरेप किया। यही नहीं उनके चाचा-चाची को बांधकर तब तक पीटा गया जब तक उनकी मौत नहीं हो गई।
 
 
बिरयानी में कथित तौर पर गोमांस के इस्तेमाल का विवाद उस वक्त भड़का जब हरियाणा गो-रक्षा टास्क फोर्स की इनचार्ज डीआईजी भारती अरोड़ा और गो-रक्षा सेवा आयोग के अध्यक्ष भनी राम मंगला ने ईद से पहले 8 सितंबर को मेवात में हाईवे किनारे बने भोजनालयों से बिरयानी के सैंपल लेने की मुहिम शुरू की।
 
भनी राम मंगला ने दावा किया कि मेवात में बीफ बिरयानी परोसे जाने की रिपोर्ट है। इसमें मेवात इलाके के गांव नूह, फिरोजपुर झिरका, नगीना, पुहाना, भडस, शाह चोखा और अन्य गांव भी शामिल हैं।बाद में हरियाणा सरकार में मंत्री अनिल विज ने कहा कि वहां से उठाए गए सभी सात नमूनों की लाला लाजपत राय पशु चिकित्सालय एवं पशु विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय, हिसार की लैब में हुई जांच में गोमांस होने की पुष्टि हो गई है। राज्य सरकार ने पिछले ही साल हरियाणा में गोवंश संरक्षण एवं गो-संवर्धन अधिनियम पास किया, जिसके तहत गोहत्या को 10 साल तक की जेल की सजा और 1 लाख रुपये के जुर्माने के साथ कठोर दंडनीय अपराध घोषित किया गया।

References:

Mewat Gang-Rape Case, Beef In Biryani 'Small Issues': Manohar Lal Khattar

The post हरियाणा के मुख्यमंत्री का दिमाग हुआ ‘खट्टर’, गैंगरेप को बताया छोटी घटना appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Umarkhed (Maharashtra): Following stone pelting near Markaz Masjid between two communities during Ganesh immersion, communal tension have erupted in the town of Umarkhed in Yavatmal district.

As many as 35 people including 12 policemen have been injured in the incident and 29 men have been detained, reports suggest. Minority community alleged one-sided action from police as the cops detained men only from the minority community.

On Thursday, September 15,at around 5 pm when people were offering afternoon prayer at Markaz Masjid, Ganesh bhakts were taking Ganesh procession and were playing DJ with high volume. Sources told TwoCirlces.net that Ganesh Bhakts did not stop playing DJ while passing through Masjid lane even though they were requested by people to turn it off and that resulted into stone pelting from both the sides.

“Windows and gate of Masjid was damaged due to stone pelting. Nearly 25 Muslims were also injured,” a source told Twocircles.net on condition of maintaining anonymity.
Local media reported that considering the sensitivity Police had already decided the route to be followed by Ganesh Mandals, however, Chhava Ganesh mandal of Tambolipura took procession on the wrong route where Markaz Masjid was stationed due to which communal tension flared up in the town.

Local media reported that although police could control stone pelting in an hour, angry mob burned down four shops and six vehicles, all belonging to minority community.
As a mark of protest, all Ganesh Mandals then stopped immersion and demanded arrest of minority people involved in stone pelting or they would not immerse Ganesh idols. Rajendra Nazardhane, BJP MLA from Umarkhed also raised same demand before the immersion of idols due to which police started to round up people from Minority community.

It was only on Friday, when 29 people were detained by police, that the Ganesh Mandals proceeded with immersion. People from minority community alleged that police indiscriminately detaining youth under the pressure of MLA and to please Ganesh Mandals, however, their community has suffered major losses in the stone pelting and burning of properties.

“They (police) came knocking at the doors at 3 am in the night and took away my son. He was not involved in any anti social activity but it seems out of enmity some people gave his name to police,” said a mother of one of the youth detained by police.

After the reports of random detention of minority youth reached Maulana Nadeem Siddique , Secretary, Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind (Maharashtra) called up SP of Nanded and IG of Amravati and requested them for fair investigation and not to harass innocent.
“ Akhilesh Kumar (SP) has assured me that they will release innocent youths who were not involved in stone pelting. I have also requested him to not work under any pressure and arrest miscreants from other community too”, Siddque said.

Courtesy: A Mirsab, TwoCircles.net

 

The post Communal Tension in Maharashtra: Stone pelting near Mosque during Ganesh Immersion appeared first on SabrangIndia.

नोएडा का अख़लाक़ मामला तो याद होगा आपको जिसे गुजरे पूरा एक अरसा बीत चुका है। फ्रीज में गौमांस मिलने के शक भर से भीड़ ने मोहम्मद अख़लाक़ को पीट-पीट कर मार डाला और बेटा भी बुरी तरह से घायल हुआ था। लेकिन अभी तक परिवार को उस मामले में किसी तरह का कोई न्याय नहीं मिल पाया है। 

 उलटे इस मामले में थाना जारचा में शुक्रवार को अखलाक के परिवार के लोगों के खिलाफ गोहत्या मामले में आईपीसी की धारा 3/8 और 3/11 के तहत एफआईआर दर्ज कर ली गई। अदालत के आदेश पर जारचा कोतवाली पुलिस ने अखलाक के परिवार के सदस्यों- मां असगरी, पत्नी इकरामन, बेटे दानिश, बेटी साहिस्ता, भाभी सोना, छोटे भाई जान मोहम्मद के खिलाफ गोहत्या निवारण अधिनियम और पशुक्रूरता निवारण अधिनियम के तहत एफआईआर दर्ज कर जांच शुरू कर दी गई है।

बिसहड़ा के ग्रामीण सूरजपाल ने मथुरा की फोरेंसिक रिपोर्ट में बीफ की पुष्टि होने के बाद कोर्ट में 156(3) सीआरपीसी के तहत याचिका दर्ज कराई थी। एक महीने तक चली सुनवाई के बाद कोर्ट ने गुरुवार को अखलाख परिवार के खिलाफ गोहत्या का मामला दर्ज करने का आदेश दिया था।

इस पूरे विवाद पर भाजपा सरकार की बहुत किरकिरी हुई थी खासकर प्रधान मंत्री नरेंद्र मोदी की सोशल मीडिया पर जमकर इस बात की आलोचना हुई थी की उन्होंने इस मुद्दे पर एक शब्द भी नहीं कहा और अपने विदेश दौरों में साम्प्रदायिक सौहार्द की  बात  करते  रहे  तथा भारत को बुद्ध की धरती बताते रहे।

The post प्रधान सेवक के जन्मदिन पर अख़लाक के परिवार को तोहफा, गोहत्या का मामला दर्ज appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Photo Courtesy: Indian Express  Home Page Image: Foxnews.com

One hundred and eighty million workers in India went out on strike on 2 September. It is the largest strike in human history. Workers came from all sectors – from the mines and crèches, from the rail yards and the banks. All trade unions – except the one backed by the RSS – backed the strike. Even workers in the RSS union joined the action. What was most notable about the strike was that it crossed lines of formal and informal sector, with the unions fierce in their determination on working-class unity at the deepest level.
 
A few days later, at Jawaharlal Nehru University, long-time campus adversaries – the Student Federation of India (SFI) and the All-India Students Association (AISA) – put up a united left slate to defeat the RSS-BJP’s student wing, the ABVP. The campaign was hard fought. In the name of JNU’s integrity, the Left fought to define the ABVP as party to the attack on freedom of expression and the rights of students across the country – from Hyderabad Central University to Jadavpur University to Himachal University. Student struggle against the pressure from the BJP-led government at the Centre has been fierce. The Left slate in JNU triumphed, winning the entire central leadership panel and most of the councillor seats in the various schools. SFI, AISA and the All-India Student Federation (who campaigned with the Left) understand that this is the time of Left unity. There were principled disagreements between the SFI and the AISA, but these were articulated in an honest and comradely fashion.
 
A few weeks before, in Una (Gujarat) and in Mumbai (Maharashtra), mass demonstrations took place that brought Dalit groups and the Left together to combat the atrocities against Dalits and the disregard shown to the legacy of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar. Despite great divides that still come between Dalit organisations and Left parties, all sides recognize that building bridges is the task of the present. As Brinda Karat, CPI-M Politburo member wrote at the LeftWord Books blog, ‘The slogan of class unity will have more meaning for a Dalit worker if working class and agrarian class organisations and movements, mobilize all workers against the specific oppression and exploitation that a worker faces as a Dalit’.
 
In this atmosphere, with Left Unity in the air, historian Jairus Banaji comes out with a harsh denunciation of CPI-M Politburo member Prakash Karat. It is a nasty piece of writing, ad hominem by definition, starting with crude statements to describe what Banaji thinks is Karat’s character. If Banaji’s larger point is that the need of the hour is unity of all forces against fascism, then his own prose fails the test – there is no comradely tone here, no attempt to win over Karat to Banaji’s view. The essay by Banaji oscillates between condescension and juvenile derision. To disagree is necessary and important. But how one disagrees is as necessary and as important.

Brinda Karat, CPI-M Politburo member wrote at the LeftWord Books blog, ‘The slogan of class unity will have more meaning for a Dalit worker if working class and agrarian class organisations and movements, mobilize all workers against the specific oppression and exploitation that a worker faces as a Dalit’

 
Why would Banaji write in this vein? It is as if Banaji is fighting ancient battles, the contest of Stalin versus Trotsky on the one hand, and the squabbles at JNU in the 1970s between the SFI and the Trotskyites on the other. His is not the tone of the United Front or the Popular Front, but one that emerges from the deepest wells of sectarianism. Must the Left return to those old debates to find its way in the present?

In most contexts, including in India, the debates between ‘Stalinists’ and ‘Trotskyites’ are of little concern. These are the parlour room discussions of hardened militants who find it hard to come to terms with the new debates over questions of strategy and tactics to organise the large segments of the ‘informal sector’ of workers who have been politically disarmed by neo-liberal policy and the mass media. But this is not Banaji’s interest. He is in the mood to score points.
 

Defending the BJP?

 
Prakash Karat makes a distinction in his short essay in the Indian Express between a fascist regime and an authoritarian one. What is the basis of this distinction? It is that fascism is an extreme form of rule sanctified by the bourgeoisie when the capitalist system faces great threats of collapse. No such signs are evident in India today. There is no imminent crisis to the fractured and complex Indian bourgeoisie, nor is there any indication that the BJP government has the stomach to move against the Constitution or even towards an Emergency regime. The BJP pushes its right-wing agenda, but it is hampered by a host of political adversaries – not only political parties, but also pressure groups and mass sentiment that will not allow it to enact its complete agenda. The fact that one hundred and eighty million workers went on strike shows that there remains wide opposition to the BJP’s ‘labour reform’ agenda, one that is otherwise quite acceptable to large sections of the parliamentary opposition (including the Congress Party).
 
The BJP itself, Karat acknowledges, is ‘not an ordinary bourgeois party’. It is, after all, part of the Sangh Parivar and linked, therefore, to the RSS. The RSS, Karat notes, ‘has a semi-fascist ideology’. What makes it ‘semi-fascist’, asks Banaji? It is semi-fascist or fascisant because it can never hope to achieve hegemony over the popular imagination, but has to impose its fascistic ideology from above, through the institutions, by manipulation of the media, by deceit rather than by the creation of conviction. Fissures along caste and regional lines are too deep to allow the RSS to dig its roots into the Indian popular imagination. If it elevates Hindi, it will alienate Tamils. If it pushes the Ram Mandir, it does not speak as loudly to Bengalis as those who read Tulsidas. The BJP – the electoral arm of the Parivar – finds it hard to break into regions of India where the RSS is not as powerful. It makes alliances. These are opportunistic. These alliances strengthen the BJP in Delhi, but do not allow it to penetrate the popular consciousness elsewhere.When the BJP is on the RSS’s (and VHP’s) turf, then matters are different. The Gujarat pogrom of 2002 took place in a setting where the RSS and the VHP had prepared the terrain. All this is well-described in TeestaSetalvad’s forthcoming memoir from LeftWord Books.
 
What we have in the BJP is authoritarianism – a strong determination to use force of various kinds to gets its way, to use fear to stifle dissent, to use intimidation to transform culture. Modi moves the authoritarianism of the BJP to its extreme. The leader is venerated, the style of politics is menacing, and the agenda is business-friendly. Echoes of Turkey’s AKP are loud, as Karat notes, but so too are there echoes of the Eastern European right-wing.
 
But in Turkey or Bulgaria, these right-wing parties are able to formulate a stable kind of racist nationalism. The societies appear more homogeneous. India is, in that sense, different. It is a multi-national state, with caste as a fissure that tears through society. No simple racist authoritarianism can succeed in India. That is why the BJP attempts to change the idea of India, push against the multi-national consensus towards what first appears as an anodyne One India politics but which later could provide the cultural basis for the Hindu Rashtra. But this feint is being contested openly and successfully. The BJP foists its representatives on the cultural institutions, but they are not obeyed. Legitimacy is not going to be easy to earn.
 
Because Banaji does not like Karat’s distinction between fascism and authoritarianism, he suggests that Karat is defending the BJP. That is outrageous. None other than the Left has been the fiercest combatant against communalism of all kinds. Others truck with communalism when it suits their electoral purposes. But the Left is principled on this issue. To make a distinction so as to clarify one’s tactics does not amount to a defence of the BJP.
 

Alliance with the Congress?
 

Banaji’s insistence that the BJP is a fascist party is not merely a technical discussion nor a debate about Germany in the 1920s (although it sometimes reads that way). This is an argument about the strategy for the Indian Left. Banaji seems to suggest – by analogy from Germany’s 1920s – that the Congress Party could be the Social Democratic ally that the German Communist Party of the 1920s rejected in the fight against Nazism. If the Communists in India today join up with the Congress Party, he implies, then they will be able to take on the BJP.

The essay by Banaji oscillates between condescension and juvenile derision. To disagree is necessary and important. But how one disagrees is as necessary and as important.

 
There are two strikingly peculiar premises to this assessment. First, the assumption that the Congress Party today is Social Democratic would be hard to sustain. The only reason that the Congress Party-led UPA 1 government adopted parts of a watered-down social democratic agenda was because of the Common Minimum Programme (CMP) it had to sign with the Left.
 
The CMP, even with the addition of the Left’s social welfare demands, remained neo-liberal in its orientation. There was no illusion about that. At that time, the Left had a bloc in parliament that made a difference to the stability of the government. It was able to force the Congress Party, whose temperament on economic matters is shared with the BJP, to pay attention to the acute crisis in the country. No such Left parliamentary bloc exists today.Evidence of the Congress Party’s social democracy is weak. Apart from the occasional speech about poverty, Congress leaders are utterly committed to the same kind of economic policies as pursued by the BJP.
 
The second assumption of Banaji’s text is that the Left – by abjuring an electoral alliance at the national level with the Congress Party – is somehow sectarian. In fact, the Left unions worked closely with the Congress unions for the September strike.
 
Sectarianism from below is not the agenda at all. In fact, it is the opposite – to build the largest coalition from below to confront the exercise of authoritarian power by the BJP government and semi-fascist power by the RSS in its boroughs. There is ample evidence of non-electoral joint struggles on the ground.
 
Banaji does not register this joint action. The Left’s hesitancy about the Congress is not a repeat of the Comintern’s social fascism doctrine, where actions with the social democrats were forbidden. If Leon Trotsky were to have appeared in India on 2 September and give his December 1931 speech, his words would appear to be quite ordinary: ‘Should fascism come to power, it will ride over your skulls and spines like a terrific tank’, he said. ‘Your salvation lies in merciless struggle. And only a fighting unity with the Social Democratic workers can bring victory’.
 
The Left mass organisations work closely with the mass organisations of other groups, and with workers and peasants who are not in any formal organisation. They are already building that ‘fighting unity’. The building of mass struggles – such as the strike of 2 September and the post-Una protests – is the task of our time.
 
Banaji’s ill-toned attack on Prakash Karat is evidence of the kind of sectarianism that the broadly defined Indian Left needs to shed. Left unity is essential if the Left in India is to create the unity of the workers and peasants whose lives and hopes depend on it. As Trotsky said in that 1931 speech, ‘Make haste, worker-Communists, you have very little time left!’
 
 
(Vijay Prashad is the Chief Editor of LeftWord Books. He is the author of No Free Left: the Futures of Indian Communism (2015) and the editor of Communist Histories, vol. 1 (2016), both published by LeftWord Books)

The post Time for Left Unity: Banaji’s Petty Prose Fails the Test appeared first on SabrangIndia.