We bring this to you with acknowledgement to the party he joined in 1977, in the interests of a wider readership and appreciation.

–Editors

At the very outset, let me express my deep sense of gratitude to the organisers for inviting me to this World Classical Tamil Conference. This conference stands out in history because it is the first conference being held after Tamil was conferred the status of ‘classical language’. We feel especially proud because this status was conferred during the period of the first UPA government, when the Left parties were supporting it along with some other parties like the DMK.

I am happy to be here on a personal note too. Though born in a Telugu family, I can claim a share of Tamilnadu – I was born in the then Madras or today’s Chennai or what we used to call as Chennapatnam. And of course, we share many common traits in terms of language and culture. “Yathum Oore, Yavarum Kelir” ‘Every place (in the world) is my home town; Everyone is my kin’

There is an interesting episode in the BBC series The Story of India, which talks about the earliest human migrations from Africa. Thanks to the development of science and technology and the Human Genome Project, it was found that the gene M130 which was found in the remains of the earliest human migrants from Africa was found among the Kallar people in the Western ghats of Tamilnadu. Professor A. Pitchappan of the Madurai University, who had stumbled upon this discovery states that these people might have provided the “basis for the genetic inheritance of the rest of us. In other words, the world was populated from here: If Adam came from Africa, Eve came from India. So it is truly Mother India, indeed”. We should be rightfully proud of today’s Tamilnadu, for being the place where this process started from.

It is this long history that we are celebrating today, noting that the evolution of language is intricately linked with the evolution of the society.

Karl Marx had called language as “the immediate actuality of thought”. Tracing the origin of language in the German Ideology he states, “Language is as old as consciousness, language is practical  consciousness that exists also for other men, and for that reason alone it really exists for me personally as well; language, like consciousness, only arises from the need, the necessity, of intercourse with other men”.

Explaining the evolution of language over the years, in his ‘Marxism and Problems of Linguistics’ Stalin writes, “Language is one of those social phenomena which operate throughout the existence of a society. It arises and develops with the rise and development of a society. It dies when the society dies. Apart from  society there is no language. Accordingly, language and its laws of development can be understood only if studied in inseparable connection with the history of society, with the history of the people to whom the language under study belongs, and who are its creators and repositories.

“Language is a medium, an instrument with the help of which people communicate with one another, exchange thoughts and understand each other. Being directly connected with thinking, language registers and fixes in words, and in words combined into sentences, the results of the process of thinking and achievements of man’s cognitive activity, and thus makes possible the exchange of thoughts in human society.

“Language has been created precisely in order to serve society as        a whole, as a means of intercourse between people, in order to be     common to the members of society and constitute the single language of society, serving members of society equally, irrespective of their class status. A language has only to depart from this position of being a language common to the whole people, it has only to give preference and support to some, one social group to the detriment of other social groups of the society, and it loses its virtue, ceases to be a means of intercourse between the people of the society, and becomes the jargon of some social group, degenerates and is doomed to disappear”.

The very fact that the Tamil language continues to develop and thrive, unlike other classical languages in the world like Latin, is because of the fact that it had maintained its liveliness by being constantly      among the people and common to the entire people.

II

The logo of this conference depicts Thiruvalluvar’s statue in Kanyakumari, lashed by tsunami waves and encircled by seven icons from the Indus Valley Civilisation. The depiction of the icons of the Indus valley civilisation in the logo deserves a mention. It brings  out the continuity and coalescence between the various cultures and the common thread that runs through them. A research paper submitted in one of these earlier conferences by Dr Iravatham Mahadevan an archaeologist of repute, pointing out that Indus valley inscriptions may belong to Dravidian culture, in fact, tries to establish the link between the people of the Indus valley with those who had inhabited these lands. The work of Dr Asko Parpola,  Deciphering the Indus Script, winner of the ‘Kalaignar M. Karunanidhi Classical Tamil Award’ also gains its importance from the fact that he had suggested Dravidian, close to old Tamil, as the language of the Indus script.

And, of course, the motto of the conference inscribed on the logo “pirapokkum ella uyirkkum, All living humans are one in circumstances of birth portrays this universalism. Its relevance today, as Thiru Karunanidhi explains, lies in its emphasis on the “ideal of humankind, that it should always be free of narrow walls of race, creed, and caste”. This is one important lesson that the history of our country, particularly this region teaches us.

The element of commonality in the languages and the harmonious  manner in which they have blossomed into what they are today, leaving along the way a rich legacy of culture, in itself constitutes   an interesting study. To better understand this phenomenon, let us take a brief example of the three south Indian languages Tamil, Telugu and Kannada. Befittingly, while Tamil was awarded the status of classical language in 2005, Telugu and Kannada were conferred similar status in 2008.

As a generation, we grew waking  up early in the morning everyday to the smell of brewing coffee and listening to M.S. Subbalakshmi on the radio. The trimurthi of Carnatic music – Thyagaraja, Shyama Sastry and Muthuswami Dikshitar – all composed their music in Telugu, though having different mother tongues. Yet, the music is called ‘Carnatic’. The harmony of our diversity is such that Telugu compositions can be effortlessly rendered in Tamil – or in Kannada. This is the beauty of    the universalism, that our tradition teaches us. Instead of recognising this simple truth, there were ugly expressions of chauvinism when M.S. Subbalakshmi was once sought to be   prevented from performing at the annual Thyagaraja festivities, Thanjavur, simply because she used to sing in Tamil.

Language, which historically acted as a binding agent for the people, was sought to be used, against its basic characteristic, as a vehicle to promote chauvinism and divisions. These attempts need to be resisted by promoting the universal values that we learn from history.

III

We communists, look at language as a unifying force in the struggle and development of society. We look at it as one among the four necessary conditions, not the only condition, that   defines a nationality. It is based on this understanding that from the days of the freedom struggle, the Communist Party fought for the formation of linguistic states – Vishalandhra for Telugu speaking people, Aikya Kerala for those speaking Malayalam and Samyukta Maharashtra for the Marathi speakers. Similarly in     Tamilnadu, communists played a prominent role in championing the cause of Tamil. Here it is apt to remember martyr Sankralingam, who died observing fast unto death for 64 days, to have the name Madras Presidency changed to Tamilnadu. He expressed his desire that his body be handed over to the communist party. P. Ramamurthy, a veteran freedom fighter and trade union leader from this part of the state, P. Jeevanandham and N. Sankaraiah declared that they would speak in Tamil in the state legislature and did speak in Tamil. A. Nallasivam, while he was an MP fought for the usage of Tamil in telegrams. Indeed they were pioneers in the struggle to get due recognition for Tamil. They believed that democracy does not have any meaning if, at least, the administration of the state is not carried out in the language of the common people. As Saint Thiruvalluvar says in his Thirukural,

Katchik keliyan kadunchollan allanel Meekkurram mannan nilam

The whole world will exalt the country of the king who is easy of access, and who is

free from harsh language”.                                 (39:386)

For a democracy to be successful, accessibility to the administration constitutes one of the important aspects. Language is one of the many aspects that not only connects both the ruler and the ruled but also defines the level of accessibility of the ruler/ruling class. Language plays an important part in the society by the means of exchange of thoughts “both in the sphere of politics and in the sphere of culture, both in social life and in everyday life”.

It is in this context that the government of the day has got an important role to play. Without falling into the pit-hole trap of the  Nehruvian model of imposing a three language formula, it should ensure that the language of the land prevails. This of course in no way should be construed as an advocacy for narrow minded linguistic chauvinism. All languages must be treated equally and allowed to thrive equally.

In today’s world no person can be bound by a single identity. The frontiers of discussion on multiple identities is extended by including the conterminous use of various languages by Indians. The extension of this understanding to include languages is important in the context of it often becoming a bone of chauvinistic contention. It is shown that in much of recorded history and in today’s realities, we, in India, live using, at least, three languages simultaneously – the mother tongue, the language at work, and the language of creative expressions. This explains our earlier example of Carnatic music. It thus becomes the bounden duty of the government to nurse this interpenetration of various identities, of course without belittling the importance of the ‘given’ identity.

Here I am, born in Tamilnadu, mother tongue Telugu, settled in Hindi-speaking Delhi, representing the people of West Bengal in the Parliament and addressing the august gathering here of Tamil speaking people from all over the world. This is India.

IV

Before I conclude, I would like to place some suggestions before the Conference for its consideration. Tamil has a rich tradition and   produced literature that is highly relevant even today. Apart from it, there are huge treasures of oral history that need to be immediately documented and preserved for eternity. Music, drama, folk arts are all repositories of such invaluable treasures. I hope the conference initiates some measures in this regard. Tamil society is also enriched by the various movements like the national movement, the self-respect movement, the Dravidian movement, the communist movement, the Dalit movement and the feminist movement. The rich treasures of literature each of these movements have left and the way they have influenced and helped in the evolution of Tamil and the society too needs to be thoroughly studied with a scientific perspective. Organisations like the Progressive Writers’ Association should not only be made part  of this conference but should also be associated with such a project.

The Thirukural says Perumai udayavar aatruvar aatrin Arumai udaya seyal

The man endowed with greatness true

Rare deeds in perfect wisdom will do. (98:975)

Let us, together, learn from the rich traditions of Tamil language in    order to create conditions for it to flourish and develop further.

 This speech, delivered at the World Classical Tamil Conference, Coimbatore, Tamailnadu, June 2010; the text has been published here (https://hindi.cpim.org/sitaram/06212010-tamil-conf-language.pdf) Sabrangindia is re-publishing it for wider readership.

Related:

When looks embody the soul: Sitaram Yechury

‘You left us a decade too soon, when India needed its body healed and soul rejuvenated’: a farewell to comrade Sitaram Yechury

A multi-religious, multi-cultural nation state like India must stay aloof from religion: Sitaram Yechury

Ban Private Armies of Gau Rakshaks by Govt Order, Central & State: Sitaram Yechury

The post Language as Unifying Force: Sitaram Yechury appeared first on SabrangIndia.

When, as is our want, as chroniclers of the times, we are pressed to pen our words, our tribute to this special man, leader, father, partner, comrade, thoughts crowd in, yet words refuse to flow in cohesion. Exactly seven days on, after September 12 when we were numbed and chilled to the core as the 3.03 p.m. news crept in, I attempt this piece. Cringing in the knowledge that so much of meaning has already been written.

What more, then, will I have to say?

I will begin this homage, or tribute with this then, sharing (s) from last Friday and Saturday when we collectively bent our heads and grieved first at Seema-Sita’s Vasant Kunj home laced and lined with gracious scented white blooms dotted with the defiant communist red and then, the next day at the Gol Market party office, AKG Bhavan where we had spent so many hours with Sita and other comrades, over the years. I did not just meet Sita there though, over decades. It was most often at the Sahmat daftar, first the one at Vithalbhai Patel house (8 VP house), then at 29 Ferozeshah Road and the last several times at 36, Pandit Ravi Shankar Shukla lane, adjoining the All India Kisan Sabha (AIKS) office. His visits for lunch and pow-wows with close comrades were intimate and friendly and those of us who could get a few minutes –often more—of his time—chatting with him on issues of grave importance, one on one, were lucky. The depth of his understanding of the ever morphing forms of ugly communalism-translated into a bitter abdication by the state and violence and misery for hundreds of thousands of our own, Muslims, made common cause with the work that we– Javed and I –have dedicated large parts of our working lives to robustly counter. His unwavering support of this work, through thick and thin, through better times and bad, was and is special yet part of the support that the party he joined in 1975 (he had joined SFI a year earlier) always offered and has given us. Deep bows and Lal Salaam Comrade!

Sita’s was an unwavering commitment to socialism and communism, his sharp reading of history matched his dedication to the soil of this land, the many layered and many flavoured freedom struggle that ousted the British. More than anything else it was his  nuanced layered and complex understanding of India’s agrarian crisis, the issues of labour organised and unorganised and for me especially, social justice that must come with a critique of communalism and a stand against caste that were fascinating. His admission, somewhat reluctant, of the urgent need of the party and left theorists to really factor in caste and issues of social justice to a class analysis goes back to 2001 or more. I was privileged to be among those who, with support from Sahmat, drew in all parliamentarians to support the cause of Dalits at the Durban UN Conference. That year, on August 31– September 4, when the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Intolerance, Xenophobia and Related Intolerances (WCAR) met in Durban, the first time since the discriminatory and centuries old regime of apartheid was overturned (in South Africa, early 1990s, formation of the first democratic government in 1994) through much sacrifice and struggle in that country, another group of subordinated peoples, discriminated by descent and occupation, forcibly segregated by tradition and religion from access to common resources, Dalits from South Asia, made their voice heard before the international community. The demands, sharply contested by the right and also other “mainstream intellectuals who rebutted claims on the matrix of sociological definitions” was clearly that that caste-based discrimination, which amounts to descent and occupation based oppression, segregation and exclusion be recognised as a distinct form of racism. A distinct form of racism, because it amounts (and has for centuries amounted to) to the denial of basic human rights based on prejudice, discrimination or antagonism and is justified by well–entrenched beliefs about high and low, superior and inferior.

The contrasting stance of India and Nepal are illuminating. As I wrote in Communalism Combat (April 2001, Hidden Apartheid). At the preparatory meeting for the WCAR, on February 19 in Tehran, the Indian government (NDA-I under Atal Bihari Vajpayee) made its stand clear — introducing caste into the ambit of the WCAR at Durban would amount to diluting the concept of racism. The government delegation was represented, among others, by then attorney general, Soli Sorabjee. More significantly perhaps, government spokesmen stressed that the problem of caste was an ‘internal’ one and therefore out of the purview of the UN. In stark and sharp contrast to the Indian government’s position was the Nepal government’s candour on the same issue, confronted as it was, then, with assertions of Nepali Dalits who account for not less than 15 per cent of the total population. The government of the only Hindu kingdom in the world openly admitted that caste is the source of acute discrimination and segregation within Nepal. This, it held, was a serious issue that falls under the theme of the forthcoming conference and should, therefore, form part of the official deliberations at the WCAR at Durban.

The idea of this recollection is not to lay down the rich nuances of that debate, that –given the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh’s (RSS’) and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) stance on caste even turned nasty for some of us supporting the Dalit demand – but to emphasise the readiness of a man of Sitaram’s intellectual and political acumen to engage with the challenge. A challenge that the demand posed, even to the organised left, the CPI-M, that has been accused of, historically and to date, ignoring the issues of caste oppression and inclusion.

Sita participated in the pre-Durban conference deliberations and lent his voice and support to the Dalit movements’ demand that was essentially attempting to take the issue of caste–based discrimination to a global forum; to solicit international condemnation of caste–based discriminatory practices and support for the struggle against it. Let’s not forget that caste based discrimination, legitimised for centuries through scripture and followed in practice by notions of high and low, superior and inferior, pure an impure. Even 77 years after independence, the problem persists. The Dalit condition, which was the result of such a pernicious theory, is the outcome of a narrow and hierarchically powerful assertion of race by perpetrators of this condition and not the other way around. It is not the metaphor of race that was being invoked but the metaphor of racism, which was the outcome of the misplaced metaphor of race. This Sita understood and as late as five months back, in early 2024, publicly articulated. The need for the organised left to be really seen as a serious political party that regards class as much as caste (and communalism) as the root of Indian oppression. For us at Communalism Combat, too this (journalistic) journey has meant deepening our understanding of how communalism (and majoritarian proto-fascism too) cannot be theoretically understood nor soundly countered or overcome without factoring in, or also battling caste.

The core of our conversations and parleys –Sita and mine–of course always dealt with the work we had undertaken, at great risk and challenge since 1992-93. First in the publishing (in book form) of the Srikrishna Commission Report on the Bombay communal riots of 1992-1993 (copies of which we sold at Rs 60 and 90 to ensure wide readability and availability). This journalist-activist action was born of our realisation that, most judicial commission reports that dissected the causes, build up and fallout of targeted communal violence post-Independence, are documents of legal-political importance that need to influence institutional memory to build in preventive and other measures to ensure that such violence does not periodically – and with more vicious intensity-repeat. For the past 32 years since then, a major personal academic and journalistic endeavour of mine has been to continually engage with these documents, ensure wider reach and availability, a task I am still currently engaged in. As editor of the CPI-M’s People’s Democracy, he was the first one, instrumental in ensuring that independent voices like us contribute to the party organ. Sita needed to fight numerous internal battles to allow me and other contributors the space to write what we wanted in PD in the manner we wanted to. But, in his own inimitable way, persuasive yet dogged, he got his way. This relationship has paved the way for a unique equation between me, a journalist activist academic and the CPI-M that is rare, precious and unique. Sita and Rajen (Rajendra Prasad) first, and then of course comrade Brinda and so many others have ensured that this relationship has been enduring. Communalism Combat (published from August 1993 to November 2012) and most particularly in the work of Citizens for Justice and Peace, post Gujarat 2002 is something that was more than close to Sita’s heart. It was an engagement that he saw as vital for the reassertion of the Constitution, a visionary document that arose out of India’s struggle for freedom. Not a day or month passed in that rich yet fractious battle (that still continues!) with a rogue state and its unaccountable functionaries, that Sita did not have his ear out for us, watchful of our predicament, support unconditional, during vilification and even incarceration. With Rajen and Sahmat in the tiny vibrant office spaces, often, and then at his Gol market office too, long elaborate discussions on the intricacies of our legal battle for accountability and reparation took place. The fact that we at CJP, always centred Survivor Voices in this battle, ensuring that the names of those who had loved, lived and lost their closest ones in the brute perpetrated violence is something that Sita deeply understood and empathised with. He met and interacted with the Survivors who bravely shared their tales and his words, his presence, renewed their faith. In not just their battle for Justice (that has remained only part fulfilled) but in the idea of India itself and the Indian Constitution too. How else can a mother who has lost her only son, another who has seen her sister and daughter raped before her eyes, a wife who lives sleepless with guilt of her dear husband’s death, a former parliamentarian not just hacked to pieces but his reputation smeared too, dare to live on? It was the warm, firm support of a man like Sita – among so many others – who met them, had the patience to listen, who spoke of the issue boldly, even when it became politically non-expedient, that meant we were not completely alone. Post September 3, 2022 when I visited Delhi after my release from jail, one of the most memorable moments of my life – one that I cherish close to me – was the lunch Rajen and colleagues organised at Sahmat – when, within minutes of my reaching, the general secretary of the CPI-M, Sitaram Yechury came by to hug and salute, with partner and fellow journalist, Seema, and soon, another Polit Bureau member, Brinda Karat, followed. Unflinching has been the support and personal respect and affection that I have been fortunate enough to receive. Hundreds of letters that I received from women activists and comrades of the AIUWFP (All India Union of Forest Working Peoples) and AIDWA (All India Democratic Women’s Association) while interned at barrack 6 of the Sabarmati Mahila Jail, Ahmedabad were an immense source of succour and strength.

Yes, it was the minor details and sheer expanse, Sitaram’s grasp on constitutionalism and parliamentary procedure, the irreverence of authority and most of all Sita’s playful charm and chuckle, all of this, that made the time spent with him, something you (silently) tuck away. To savour for another day. For the way Sitaram matched words with ideas, wove in culture and history, shared this with the ease of complete camaraderie made the conversations special.

Words often desert us when a near one passes. There is shock, disillusion, need to collectively grieve and share and then the inevitable clichés. So let me share more of some and all of these with you from September 13-14 in New Delhi.

The elegance and beauty of the flower malas and garlands strewn on the staircase up to the first floor home matched the fragrance of goodwill, care and grief within. They had been handpicked by Kanishka and Vertika (of the Prasad-Chopra-Chaturvedi clan) from the flower market at Seema’s special request. Sita lay before the beautiful, large poster of the original blockbuster, 1949 film, Andaaz with the triangular cast of Dilip Kapoor, Nargis and Raj Kapoor, directed by Mahboob Khan and the songs by Majrooh Sultanpuri. This larger than life poster adorned a bright red wall painted for Sita as a special gift by partner Seema to and for her communist humsafar and love, Sitaram. Kahwa and then tea was served graciously to all (daughter Akhila, son Danish and daughter-in law Swati) as we sat and shared the moments of loss as Pinarayi Vijayan, chief minister of Kerala, much later Chandrababu Naidu, chief minister of Andhra Pradesh (remember Sita was the Andhra boy who entered Jawaharlal Nehru University-JNU and became the student union president in 1978) and so many other political figures (even from the ruling dispensation) paid homage. Comrade Brinda Karat was staunchly by the family’s side both last Friday and through the weeks of care at AIMS, Delhi where he had been admitted on August 19 with a pneumonia like infection. There was disbelief and loss and as always a shared camaraderie and many precious conversations.

The next day at the party office was different, yet similar. Here was a different homage, formal, rich with the presence of so many special names from the political and intellectual firmament but it was also one large family. A large, large gathering from the morning till 3 p.m. when the final march began from AKG Bhavan to 14 Ashoka Road, the CPI-M office and finally to AIMS where Sita said goodbye must have touched 25,000. Young people, party affiliated and not, were there in significant numbers. It was not the numbers however but the shared common emotion of loss and belonging that were tangible. District committee members of the party from states across the country recounted how this man, who represented this party and organisation to the world (Sita headed the International Department of the CPI-M) and within India, across regions who spoke Bengali as much as his mother tongue Telugu, Malayalam, Hindi-Urdu apart from fine English was one of them, a comrade who had no airs, who was not just accessible but understood the value of each woman and man in this giant structure. To feel this tangible quality of what Sita was that day in the hot and sweaty mandap outside Gol Market is something I do not think one will see too often, again. His close colleagues Muralidhar, SN, yaar NK Sharma stood some distance away bewildered, unable to face the loss. Danish his second adored son quietly went up and paid homage to his father in the office, the office of the general secretary of the party, where Sita had sat, after some tussle and pulls, since 2015.

Sita’s personal life with Seema in their home and beyond reflected the openness and flexibility of him as a person, the staunch communist ideologue with a generous and practical pragmatic bent that deeply believed that the rich nuances and diversity of India’s coalition politics was not just a pragmatic necessity but possibly, the best way for an inclusive and representative government. His mentor, the wily Sardar of the party, Harkishen Singh Surjeet, groomed Sita well in the dos and don’ts of building consensus. We are too vast, diverse, bonded yet different for any structural rigidity to successfully bind us. The bonds that bind must be – like at the time of India’s struggle for freedom – bows of common cause with arrows that focus on all kinds of oppression, gender, caste and communal driven. These too must evolve with the times and technologies of the day. Language of the young laced with the rich learnings of our positive past is something that Sita respected and we must too.

Not a day has passed since that day, September 12 that I have not thought of Seema, and Sita often. It is a bruising sort of pain. Especially when I think back to that day, April 22, 2021 when the family lost their elder son, Ashish (Bhiku) Yechury to Covid-19. The grace and stoic courage with which he, Swati, Indrani Mazumdar, Seema, Akhila and Danish bore that loss is rare to see. It was the same grace that was evident on September 13-14. Bonded again in quiet and dignified grief, one heart-breaking moment was when Indrani said to me, “how tragically similar the way both Sitaram and Bhiku left us; now they are both gone.”

His dear wife and life partner Seema, a professional colleague and friend will bear the loss with her customary courage and shrugging, biting humour even as she tears up in unbearable grief. The loss will remain a constant void. The dignified threads of love and sharing with all three children will mitigate the difficult passing. Apologies for this additional dose of sobriety and sadness but it is impossible to pen this piece without reflecting and sharing how unfair it has been, for the Chisti-Yechury-Mazumdars to live through this twice. The loss and pain of a loved one’s aching departure.

For Bhiku, at Delhi’s Sunder Nursery, loved ones have dedicated benches to their beloved and lost ones (benches trigger nostalgia, anticipation and also, an inscription becomes an epitaph of belonging). Here we have, this family who has dedicated two benches to “beloved Bhiku” (Ashish Yechury). One of the inscription reads: You left us bereft but with much to discover of the season and the times captured by your camera…And the quirky touch that remains forever you. The second one, also dedicated to Ashish Yechury, ends with a poem by Nigerian poet Ijeoma Umebinyuo: “So, here you are too foreign for home, too foreign for here. Never enough for both.” Both are, as I said before, in the loving memory of Ashish Yechury.

And then I think, in how many Indian and world cities, Delhi first of course, will benches be dedicated and inscribed to Comrade Sitaram Yechury? His footprints left imprints near and far, and in each of these locales, to that bench that will inscribe, deep affection, loss and love at his too early parting.

Fare thee well comrade Sita, Au Revoir.

Teesta

[1] Sitaram Yechury’s writings and speeches figured regularly and often in both Communalism Combat and Sabrangindia.For example https://sabrangindia.in/ban-private-armies-of-gau-rakshaks-by-govt-order-central-state-sitaram-yechury/; https://sabrangindia.in/a-multi-religious-multi-cultural-nation-state-like-india-must-stay-aloof-from-religion-sitaram-yechury/

Related:

‘You left us a decade too soon, when India needed its body healed and soul rejuvenated’: a farewell to comrade Sitaram Yechury

A life dedicated to idealism of inclusive anti caste India

How Do I Say Goodbye to a Comrade I Have Known For 50 Years?

The post When looks embody the soul: Sitaram Yechury appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In colleges the unions were divided between two broad outlooks and behaviour(s): one which advocated the intellectual quest for progressive politics and the other which advocated muscular pursuit for power by any means. The former was often represented by SFI/AISF while the latter was predominantly represented by NSUI/ABVP.

It was natural for someone like me getting drawn towards SFI’s ideological goals and culturally veered toward socialist ideals. In that horizon a common face which represented both the ideology and the culture of progressiveness, in its most gentle liberal way was Comrade Sitaram Yachury. He was young, educated and erudite. He also had an expansive personality, which encompassed a wide section of eager voices and interests.

Amongst the panorama of shrill trade unionists, militant ideologists and rigid intellectuals, comrade Sitaram seemed like an ocean of objectivity and acceptabiliry. He so easily communicated the essence of historical materialism while also appreciating the lyricism of Ustad Amjad Ali khan sahab’s sarod interpreting the ancient ragas.

He could find relevance in a working class rally as well as a progressive Urdu mushiara.

He was the fulcrum which balanced many shades of ideologies and didn’t find harsh detractors amongst opposing ideologies. I was always confused as to whether to address him as a political leader or a liberal intellectual, so easily he slipped between the two roles.

In my formative years of cultural renaissance, working with the Jan Natya Manch, volunteering for Sahmat, teaching theatre in education in progressive schools, handling projects on litetacy and minimum science for other organisations and groups, I found I was constantly trying to emulate the idea of Comrade Sitaram…wear a smile on your face, fill ideological idealism in your heart and carry the steel of purpose in your mind. All while taking everyone along the common democratic path. Easier said than done. Only comrade Sitaram knew that, and held that quality till the very end, while most of us drifted and floated around in myriad contradictions.

I doubt if we will ever get someone so gentle and so graceful, yet so precise and incisive in political discourse, to ever inhabit the most treacherous and complex political landscape, that is India.

A decade too soon, you left us, just as Indian politics  needed all the sanity and empathy you embodied: sane and empathetic leaders to collectively help, heal its body and rejuvenate its soul.

Farewell comrade.

(The author, Joy Sengupta, is a well-acclaimed actor in theatre and cinema. Apart from awards won for performances in Hazar Chaurasi ki Ma directed by Govind Nihalani and for the portrayal of Gandhi in the ipic play, Samy  and the Bengali film, Bilu Rakhosh,  Sengupta has worked with legendary directors  Habib Tanveer and Safdar Hashmi. He is a teacher of Theatre in Education and used theatre for projects on literacy and social work)

Related:

Artists & Intellectuals must appeal to the Good: Joy Sengupta, theatre-film actor

The post ‘You left us a decade too soon, when India needed its body healed and soul rejuvenated’: a farewell to comrade Sitaram Yechury appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Left politics in India has been active at the grassroots for years but unfortunately rigidity at different levels forced its demise in numerous places. The traditional parties were being replaced by others who were able to understand the quest for representation among the most marginalized. The futile intellectual debate of ‘class-caste’ only proved the point of their opponent that the party is the biggest protector of the Brahmanical caste interests. Parties like CPI(ML) were spreading their base in Bihar and Jharkhand just because they understood this identity aspiration of the most marginalized and provided space to the communities. It is also a fact that you can’t really blame one individual for the policies of the party particularly in the left parties where their state units are more powerful in many states than the central secretariat of the party. Even with all criticism, left parties are not a one man show and there is more democracy and discussion among them in comparison to any other political party claiming to represent the marginalized. There is still no messiah cult in the left politics, a need and demand for the colonial democracy that we are in.

Sitaram Yechury was definitely not a mass leader but his impact on political opinion making was enormous. The power of the left despite shrinking still remain in our social cultural lives apart from various trade unions, academia and the political sphere. In the last one decade, efforts have been made by not only the ruling party but many vilifying the left activists and leaders. As I said, there might be differences of opinion, their failure to include people from the margin in their decision-making bodies as well as failure of West Bengal model, democratic left was still the need of the hour. Sitaram Yechury’s writings were sharp and well explained. Frankly speaking, he was the face of the left politics in the last two decade who was articulate and much more comfortable in the north Indian politics of social justice in particular. Even when he hailed from the South, the ease with which he spoke Hindi was remarkable. While it is not my point that one must learn Hindi, the thing is, for a party leader who plans to work in the Hindi heartland, it is always great to be bilingual. That way, Yechury had command like Comrade A B Bardhan in Hindi which made his writing and speeches understood by a very large audience in the Hindi heartland.

Whatever may be differences about individual opinion but Sitaram Yechury proved that he did not have many faces who private beliefs were the same as his political ideology unlike most of the Indian political as well as ‘intellectual’ class who are ‘revolutionary’ in public life but ‘reactionary’ and rigid in their private lives. He was the President of Jawaharlal Nehru University three times and one is sure that whenever the history of student movement and truly democratic characteristics of student politics would ever be discussed in India, Yechury’s contribution to student politics can never be omitted or discounted.

One of the most vilified things in today’s India by the right-wing trolls on social media as well as Bania channels is the interfaith marriages. Yechury spoke about his personal life for the first time in his last speech in Parliament in 2017, which could simply be termed as one of the finest speeches.

‘I was born in the Madras General hospital now called Chennai General Hospital to a Telugu speaking Brahmin family. My grandfather being a judge, after the state reorganization the Andhra Bench of the state High Court went to Guntur (formation of Andhra Pradesh), so we shifted there in 1954, I was born in 1952. Shift to Hyderabad in 1956. My school education is in an Islamic culture that was prevalent in Hyderabad under Nizam rule in the early days of independence in 1956. I got my education there then come to Delhi, study here. I married to a person whose father is a Sufi of the Islamic order whose surname is a Chistie, whose mother is a Mysorian Rajput who migrated there in the 8^th century AD. We are now in the 21^st century. She is the daughter of these two, father and mother. A South Indian Brahmin born family married to this lady what will my son be known as sir. What is he? Is he a Brahmin? Is he a Muslim? Is he a Hindu? What? There is nothing that can describe my son rather than being an Indian.’

These last sentences in the Parliament actually relate to those who are victimized and vilified simply because they are challenging the traditional system of marriages, moving beyond their castes and faiths and building up their dream based purely on the idealism of Baba Saheb Ambedkar, Periyar and Bhagat Singh. Unfortunately, anti-caste movement would have promoted this kind of idealism but today in the age of deepening caste identities any alliance beyond your community might not be a politically fertile idea for all. Yes, for some, it might fetch bumper crops but not for all particularly when one partner is a Muslim. You suffer on a daily basis but Sitaram Yechury spoke from the heart and for those who have made their dreams as per this idealism.

It is important to understand that whether it is Marxism or Ambedkarism or any other idealism, dogmas take you nowhere. Ultimately, it is your way of life which matters more than anything. Even when we criticize Marxists in India for being Brahmanical in nature, by his own behaviour and life that he lived, Sitaram Yechury actually was following the anti-caste idealism of Dr Ambedkar or Periyar. Frankly speaking, inter-caste marriages are still rare among Ambedkarites who should have been in the forefront of carrying out the mission of Baba Saheb. That way, Sitaram Yechury might not have brought votes and seats to his party but he definitely enriched our political idealism as well as civic spaces. Such voices are always required to remind us of our moral duties. It is also true that political activism is not always for power politics but also meant to exert pressure on the ruling elite. Sometimes, you need the conscious keepers for our society, otherwise the so called representatives of the people would act on the whims and fancies of the powerful corporate to protect their business interests.

As a true comrade dedicated to scientific rational thinking who lived a secular way of life. He donated his body for medical research. Again, despite all political differences, left leaders lived a life dedicated to scientific temperament and relatively simple and honest than most of the political parties in today’s time. Sitaram Yechury’s last wish was honoured by his wife Seema Chistie and daughter which need kudos and appreciation. Most of the time, the families decide against the wishes of the deceased and place their own personal values in dealing with the dead body which end up in exactly the opposite to the idealism of the individual passed away. It happened to many people because after the death their families performed all religious rituals, they stood against all through their lives. At least, in his death, Sitaram Yechury as well as his family did not allow the death of his idealism dedicated to secularism, rationalist scientific thinking and humanist values.

The post A life dedicated to idealism of inclusive anti caste India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post How Do I Say Goodbye to a Comrade I Have Known For 50 Years? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Our basic problem today is the fundamentally flawed approach of the ruling sections which have tended to define secularism in practice as equality towards all religions whereas the Constitution that is founded on secular principles speaks of the need to separate religion from the State. This separation is a critical and defining aspect of a modern nation state like India that is rich with a multitude of religious, cultural and linguistic differences. In such a case, religion remains the choice of an individual and this right the State shall and is bound to protect.

But the moment the State intervenes to ensure equality between religions, and there is an overwhelming majority of one faith, that intervention inevitably and unfailingly favours the majority. This is exactly what we are witnessing in India today. Due to this flawed approach by the ruling political sections, whose practice post–Independence did not conform to what secularism must mean in terms of the modern Indian state, we are witnessing crude digressions today.

The argument that secularism is a foreign or a western notion being imposed on an inherently different Indian ethos is an apology for not being secular. The point is that the ethos of India and of any other country is not essentially different. Every culture, all peoples have their specificities but these in no way interfere or impinge on fundamental human impulses, needs and requirements. And here we are speaking of the fundamental principles of co–existence in a multi–dimensional reality.

It is imperative that the Indian state in a multi–religious, plural society like ours remains distanced from religion. This does not mean that the State is anti–religion; it only means that it will neither have nor assume a religious tinge or character. It will, in this very neutrality and also as a fundamental duty, protect the right of each and every citizen or individual living in its territory to his or her individual faith. That is, religion will and must remain in the private sphere.

This is especially critical in our situation where the evolution of the nation–state has been different from the European nation–state. Here, we have always had unity in a vast diversity. This diversity is not just religious, but linguistic and also includes various nationalities. To build a State writ within it, this concept of unity in a diverse situation such as this, requires that the commitment to secularism be all the more firm.

The argument, made in the converse by the right wing, that because of the diversity of India, the state needs to engage with different religions, then becomes even more slippery. Secularism in India will have to be richer and firmer in its separation because of this diverse reality. Besides, in India secularism and democracy are inseparable precisely because of this diversity. The protection of the right of the minority is the hallmark of the democracy. Secularism therefore is essential for a democracy.

The evolution of the modern state begins with Independence because the British colonial state was not modern. Secular democracy is the foundation of the modern Indian state. The foundation of the Constitution as a secular, democratic republic could be established in India even in the most trying times caused by Partition–related Holocaust and the assassination of Gandhi only because and only when the political class confronted communalism of both the majority and minority, frontally.

Hence, post–Partition, the RSS was banned in the wake of Gandhi’s assassination. The minority dropped the demand for communal electorates. Of great significance is the correspondence between Nehru and GB Pant on the Babri Masjid issue where Prime Minister Nehru decisively wrote that it was no business of the state to meddle in matters of faith and belief. The most significant such step was the Cabinet of India writing to the President, Rajendra Prasad when he wished to visit the Somnath temple, that he would have to undertake the trip in his personal capacity, not as President of the country.

These were the ideals on which the Indian state was founded. Even Sardar Patel, whom the fanatic right wing is so apt at misquoting, was clear that state should have nothing to do with affairs of religion. It was he who was, as much as Nehru, against state funds being used to re-build the Somnath temple. Therefore, the government did not rebuild the temple.

These are several instances where the state took a firm position on secularism. The moment there is dithering for reasons of political expediency, short cuts are taken and this faltering applies as much to the communal tendencies of the minority as the majority. Then the state in its compromised avatar appeases sections — the classic manifestation is the state’s behaviour vis–à–vis the shilanyas at Ayodhya and, post-Shah Bano judgement, towards the Muslim minority. The moment this short-circuiting became the accepted practice, secularism took a blow.

The Left has been the most consistent defendant of genuine secularism, against the dilution of secularism and erosion of secular values. It has always stated that separation between religion and state, not equality of religions, is the essence of secularism.

The moment you talk of equality for all religions, every arm of the state, instead of separating the state and its functioning from religions per se, begins a process of accommodation. And in this process of accommodation, majoritarianism inevitably creeps in.
The Left has also had the moral courage to admit and learn from its mistakes. There was a time when we went with the Muslim League in Kerala in the seventies. But in the early eighties, we reviewed this alliance on the basis of our experience. We concluded that the alliance was giving legitimacy to a religion–based political organisation and that this does not strengthen secularism. Moreover through the alliance, our respectability was used to further their sectarian agenda. So in the early eighties, on the basis of our experience in allying with them in the past, we not only ended the alliance but decided never to enter into it again. Because, in effect, we realised that in the process an unfortunate legitimacy was being accorded to a religion–based political formation and also that we were only helping them consolidate their base.

It was after the second and brutish dismissal of the EMS Namboodripad government in 1969 in Kerala, that a broad anti–Congress front consisting of all those willing to take on the Congress emerged, and in this broad alliance we sat with the League.

The government came to into existence in 1977, but ended soon thereafter.

The point is that the Left is the only force which, apart from taking a consistent theoretical and practical position on secularism, also had the moral strength to review an earlier association with a communal organisation after which we decided not to enter into such an alliance in the future.

Now, coming to the wings of the Indian state vis–à–vis secularism. The erosion of a genuine commitment to secularism by the dominant Indian political class and the executive was translated into similar departures from secular values by other wings of the state. Hence, even before the more bloody eighties, when pogroms of the kind we saw in Bhagalpur, Meerut–Malliana took place, in the 70s itself we saw the communalisation of the Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) in UP.

This brings me back to my original point. The moment you talk of equality for all religions, every arm of the state, instead of separating the state and its functioning from religions per se, begins a process of accommodation. And in this process of accommodation, majoritarianism inevitably creeps in.

So, for instance, if you say that gurudwaras, or churches, or mosques, or temples are all right in a police station, what will be the result? Obviously there will be more temples, as Hindus are far more numerous in the political structures, institutions or government offices. This is how the different wings of the state have slowly got corrupted over the years: by the Indian state dithering on the principle of real secularism which is a distance from religion. It is only by taking a firm position and reasserting today that religion has nothing to do with the state that the Indian political class can hope to redeem a lost value.

Religion will always remain one instrument that the ruling classes will use to exploit the masses, divide people and do whatever else is necessary to consolidate their own rule. All the more reason that it, religion, be divorced from the state.

However, at the individual level, the equal right of all Indians to believe and to practice, propagate and enjoy that belief will be protected by the state. Moreover, secularism and the freedom of faith enjoined within it also mean that none could interfere in the exercise of that choice. So, in my personal life, I can be an atheist, Christian, Muslim or a Hindu. The state’s role is only to protect that individual human right.

Faced with the onslaught from a narrow and fanatic brand of religion, which has a distinct fascistic edge, the people of India, I am convinced, will eventually revolt against the cynical appropriation of that faith. The right wing fascist takeover of religion — of which browbeating the minority is an integral part, Gujarat being the ‘best’ example of this — is what we see at it’s height today.

But this phase cannot last for long because, apart from attacking minorities, this fascistic tendency has other consequences, too. A severe erosion of democracy and economic oppression of all people, regardless of their religious identity, will necessarily accompany the attack on Muslim minorities. Millions of people have been oppressed by the brutal economic policies of this regime; civil liberties and the right to question decisions of the state are being seriously undermined.

These issues are brewing at the grassroots level and brutal communal attacks are being used to divert public attention from them. Soon, these legitimate resentments will come to the surface and issues of oppression, economic and political, of all Indians — not just the unfortunate minorities — be highlighted and the autocratic designs of the fascist elements misusing religion will truly get exposed.

Let’s not forget that despite the harsh face of political Hinduism which we see today, the nineteenth century and even earlier history is replete with examples of strong Hindu reform movements that raised the very same issues that the broad Left is raising today. These were issues of oppression, the gender question and economic oppression by the ruling and influential sections.

It was these reform movements in the tribal belts and elsewhere that politically malevolent outfits like RSS/VHP infiltrated and appropriated. Don’t we know that the Vanvasi Kalyan Samitis existed within the reformist Hindu fold, formed to propagate land reforms, before the RSS, through the VHP, successfully appropriated them? Why did they feel the need to do so? These forces, which represent a class/caste and community driven authoritarian structure, the sangh parivar, saw that the empowering work being undertaken by such movements of reform, would, ultimately be a threat to them.

On both counts, I firmly believe that people will not tolerate the exploitation of their religious sentiments beyond a point. I see this happening sooner rather than later. The last three–four years of thoughtless economic policies have seen a serious incursion into the democratic rights and economic lives of a large number of Indian people. Soon we shall see mass protests of workers and the agricultural class and the impact of these protests.

Eventually, it will be the resurgence of these issues to the forefront of political and public life and discourse that will counter the erosion of the genuine secular principle. And then, hopefully, the move towards the restoration of genuine secularism will begin. n

(As told to Communalism Combat).

Archived from Communalism Combat, February 2003 Year 9  No. 84, Cover Story 3

The post A multi-religious, multi-cultural nation state like India must stay aloof from religion: Sitaram Yechury appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Sitaram Yechury, Rajya Sabha member and general secretary of the CPI(M),  in his impassioned speech on the brutal lynchings that have overcome the Indian Republic spoke at length on the history of the freedom struggle, the battle for a composite nationhood (where every citizen is equal irrespective of caste, community, gender or class) and how the RSS and Muslim League vision of nationhood differed from this, and still does. He said it is not enough for the Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi to ask the states to act but crucial for the Central and State Governments to ban the private armies that have been emboldened into taking law into their own hands. He quoted, also from the New York Times and the Financial Times to show how the reputation of this government is at an all time low.

The full text of the speech may be read here:

Sir, I am rising to speak with a very heavy heart and also in the background of what happened in the House just now. Sir, the sort of atmosphere that we have seen here does not augur well for our Parliamentary democracy. Since the problem is solved, I do not want to go into that.

But, actually, Sir, I am standing with my head hanging in shame.

Where has our Republic come to? Seventy years earlier, we had the pride in the world to say — while no other western democracy could have the courage to say — that from day one, we shall give universal suffrage for everybody in our country. Irrespective of their religious affiliation, irrespective of their caste, irrespective of their gender, we gave universal suffrage, which was a revolutionary step at that point of time, and, its basis was recognition of equality. It is that equality today that is being questioned and is being severely trampled upon through these instances of lynching.

My earlier speakers have listed various instances. I am not going to repeat them but just look at some of the gruesome tales. You have Akhlaq lynched at his dinner table because of the allegation that he was eating beef. It happened in 2015. Two youngsters in Latehar in Jharkhand were hanged because they were taking their cattle to a cattle fair. They were Muslim boys. You have Pehlu Khan, a dairy farmer, lynched in Alwar. In Una, there were dalits who were skinning the dead cows; that is the job, which, dalits, unfortunately are destined to do.You have them lynched. The boys were whipped and lynched. And that was filmed. We’re just talking about the social media. It was viral on the social media. You had the case of Junaid and his brothers. You had the case of Zafar who was killed by officials in Rajasthan because he asked them to stop filming a woman defecating in the open. Look at the level of intolerance and the gruesome tales that are taking place.

Sir, I recollect the words used by Rabindranath Tagore when he returned his Knighthood. What were the words that he used? He said, “Give me a voice of thunder, that I may hurl imprecations upon this cannibal whose gruesome hunger spares neither women nor children..”

That is the degree of dehumanisation that we have arrived at. Why we have arrived here is something that needs to be understood and debated. And we have to reach a conclusion on that in this august House.

Yes, we have international experiences of lynching. It comes down from medieval times during the Spanish Inquisition. How did they identify who’s a Muslim and who’s a Jew? By giving them a broth of soup which contained pork. Those who did not drink that soup were identified as Jews and Muslims and persecuted. One legacy that the Spanish Inquisition left behind was the triangular cap that was taken over by the Ku Klux Klan in the United States of America.

Till 1940, they were persecuting the blacks saying that they were inferior human beings. I am sure some of my old colleagues still remember the famous song by Billie Holiday which is titled “Strange fruit”. The song begins by saying, what is the strange fruit on the southern trees is with blood on the leaves. The ‘southern tree’ means Southern America in those days. And ‘the blood on the leaves’ means that it’s the black man hanged there. During the Spanish Inquisition what they had to identify Muslims and Jews by, “Who eats pork?” and you have “Who eats beef?” to identify who is a Hindu and who is a non-Hindu in India in 2017. Is this what my country is coming to?

And what about the private armies which are now roaming around? The Prime Minister has said that it is a State subject and that it is a law and order problem. These private armies have to be banned by a Central order. There should be a Central order to ban private armies who are taking law into their own hands. You had the Ku Klux Klan taking law into its own hands. You had black and brown shirts of Hitler and Mussolini taking law into their own hands. They cannot be banned by any one State Government. They will have to be banned by the State and that is the Central Government. That is the only way by which you can stop the private armies forcing to implement the law of the land for which they have no authority and that is why we immediately ask for a ban on these vigilante groups of all nature whether it be moral policing or whether it be cow vigilantism who are resorting to such actions. These groups must be banned by a Central order. And that is a demand my party would like to make to the Government.

But why is all this happening, Sir? This is not happening because we suddenly have a rise in the crime in the country. This is happening because of a certain ideological project that is at work and that is something we have to understand, Sir, you and I, and all of us have inherited our independent India and the Constitution. This was a product of a battle between three visions.

The mainstream vision during the freedom struggle was that of the Congress. They talked of future independent India being a secular democratic republic. We, the Left, had a difference with them. We said that we could not stop at that. We told them that they had to move forward to convert our political independence into economic independence and that could happen only under socialism, otherwise, the social democratic republic could itself become vulnerable. There was a third vision which had a twin expression. You had the Muslim League talking of an Islamic India and you had the RSS talking of a Hindu Rashtra.

Both of them wanted the country, independent India, to be a theocracy guided by the religious affiliations of its people. Unfortunately, the Muslim League succeeded aibly aided by the British and the country was partitioned. For my generation, even for me, all that is history because we were born after that. …(Interruptions)… That is apart. But the point is, religious affiliations being the basis for statehood, is at variance with the other two visions that were there of – a secular democratic republic.

After Independence, India became a secular democratic country. Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated out of that anger of not facilitating the ‘hindu rashtra’ when that assassination happened, after that, there was a ban on the RSS that was initiated by Sardar Patel – of all the people, Sardar Patel! What did the ban order say, which he drafted himself on the 4th of February, 1948?

You have Akhlaq lynched at his dinner table because of the allegation that he was eating beef. It happened in 2015. Two youngsters in Latehar in Jharkhand were hanged because they were taking their cattle to a cattle fair. They were Muslim boys. You have Pehlu Khan, a dairy farmer, lynched in Alwar. In Una, there were dalits who were skinning the dead cows; that is the job, which, dalits, unfortunately are destined to do.You have them lynched. The boys were whipped and lynched. And that was filmed. We’re just talking about the social media. It was viral on the social media. You had the case of Junaid and his brothers. You had the case of Zafar who was killed by officials in Rajasthan because he asked them to stop filming a woman defecating in the open. Look at the level of intolerance and the gruesome tales that are taking place.

The Sardar says – I quote – “The objectionable and harmful activities of the Sangh have however continued unabated and the cult of violence sponsored and inspired by the activities of the Sangh has claimed many victims, the latest and the most precious to fall was Gandhiji himself.” It is the cult of violence that is spread. I am not saying what some say that all these gau rakshaks are RSS people. Some are saying they are anti-socials, they are criminals. The Prime Minister has said so. They are criminals by the night and they may be something else by the day.

But why & how are they getting this courage to act? It is because of the spread of this cult of violence. That is what has to be contained. But the battle of the visions did not stop there after Gandhiji’s assassination.

Unfortunately, many were lulled into submission thinking that that was stopped then. But, no, subsequently, what have we seen? It is the brand of nationalism that was purviewed even after Mahatma’s assassination, even after adopting our Constitution. Here, Sir, I quote to you what the RSS chief at that point of time said. I quote, “What is the attitude of those who have been converted to Islam or Christianity? They are born in this land, no doubt. But are they true to its salt? Are they grateful towards this land which has brought them up? Do they feel that they are the children of this land and its tradition and to serve it is their great good fortune? Do they feel it a duty to serve her? No! Together with the change in the faith, gone are the spirit of love and devotion for the nation.”

If these are the values that you are spreading ideologically after Independence and after the Constitution, what does this mean? It directly contradicts  the right to equality, which we have provided in our Constitution, irrespective of caste, creed or sex. That’s the word used in the Constitution. It directly contradicts that.

This is the ideological position that has risen to these levels whereby nationalism is only equated as Hindu nationalism or Hindutva nationalism. This is not my Bharat Mata which I know of. My Bharat Mata has given births to Muslims, Christians, Parsis, Buddhists, Jains and to atheists. This is not that Bharat Mata. When we say ‘Bharat Mata ki jai’, we say ‘Bharat Mata ki jai’ for all these people. But, at the same time, we say ‘Jai Hind’. Why is Jai Hind not a patriotic slogan and why is Bharat Mata ki jai alone a patriotic slogan? Is there no insidious meaning in that?

…(Interruptions)… What about Bhagat Singh’s Inquilab Zindabad? Is that not patriotic? Is Bhagat Singh not patriotic? …(Interruptions)… Then, do not distinguish on the basis of what slogans are shouted. A patriot is a patriot. It’s an Indian patriot. That is why, that Indian patriotism is what we are standing for, not for Hindutva patriotism or Hindutva nationalism.

It is that Indian nationalism which has to be nurtured and that is our duty, and because of not nurturing it you have these lynch mobs here today. You have these lynch mobs which come out of that hatred.

Such nationalism, unfortunately, I do not feel very good saying this but I want to bring to the notice of this august House that there was a nationalism of this type that was also there, that the world had seen, and that was Hitler’s nationalism. What was Hitler’s nationalism, Sir? He talked of German nationalism as a gigantic national organism. He talked of it as a body. If  German nationalism has to be stronger – I am quoting from the Mein Kampf that he had written – this gigantic organism has to be rid of all the germs that are alien to that organism. Then, to do so, what does he say? I quote from Mein Kampf: “This urge for maintenance of unmixed breed, (read Hindutva,) which is a phenomenon that prevails throughout the whole of the natural world, results not only in sharply defined outward distinction between one species and another.

The struggle for daily livelihood leaves behind in the ruck everything that is weak or diseased or wavering.” If this weak or diseased or the wavering are not removed, this organism of German nationalism cannot be strengthened and that is why he says “Since the inferior always outnumber the superior, the former would always increase more rapidly.” (Recollect the RSS propaganda of multiplication of the Muslim race versus the Hindu race.)” They will increase more rapidly if they possessed the same capacity for survival and for procreation of their kind. The final consequence would be that the best in quality would be forced to recede in the background. Therefore, a corrective measure in favour of better quality must intervene.”

Weed away all these elements. That is how you strengthen  German nationalism. That was Hitler’s nationalism. Today, ‘weed away all non-Hindus, you strengthen Hindutva nationalism’. That is the philosophy that is prevailing and that is rising in our country. It is not a Hindu right. It is Hindutva nationalism. It is this, that  is giving sustenance for such groups to continue to exercise and do what they are doing. This vigilantism, that we are seeing today, is a part of this larger effort so it is no longer just a fringe doing it. It is not some fringe or some anti-social elements or some criminals but what the Sardar(Patel) himself said that the cult of violence spread by these,  is generating all these elements into action, into attacking the very foundations of our Constitutional Republican order where that basic Right to Equality is being denied. That basic right to faith and propagate each own’s faith is being denied. As this is happening, you are undermining this very Constitutional order. That is why the fight against this lynching and vigilante groups is essential to maintain our Constitutional order.

Let me tell you — this is something not only me saying it — the Government’s favourites, that is, the foreign media, it is the foreign media, Sir — I quote to you The New York Times which is kept in very high esteem by this Government. What does The New York Times writes in its editorial two-three days ago? “This might seem – (this means these lynch attacks) — like merely a farcical move by Hindu fanatics, if it were not so in line with much else that is happening in Mr. Modi’s India, and if implications for India’s democracy weren’t so chilling! But this is where Mr. Modi has brought the nation to as it prepares to celebrate 70 years of independence on Aug. 15.” It is The New York Times editorial.

What does this week-end’s Financial Times say, Sir ? The Prime Minister of this Government “must stop pandering to the Hindu right. This policy comes against the backdrop of an increase in attacks by Hindu vigilantes on those suspected of trading or consuming beef; an estimated 28 or more people have been killed in such attacks so far….”

This is your international standing today. And, they are recognizing what is happening in our country is something that is completely antithetical to the entire constitutional values and orders that we have given ourselves.

Sir, you, sitting on that Chair, and all of us have come with an oath on this Constitution. We have come with an oath on this Constitution which gives me एक धम«िनरपे© जनतंĝ का गणतंĝ, a Secular Democratic Republic, that is, Bharat. Now, that is under question today and that is why, I say that what is happening is not my Mother India. What did my Mother India teach me, Sir, when we all grew up and what it continues to teach me today? What did Swami Vivekananda tell us, ‘Like different rivers flow in different directions, in different courses to merge in the same ocean, like that, different human beings through their own faiths or even being an atheist, all merge into one ocean of humanity.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Yes, that is what Rig-Veda says, “एकं सिǎĢा बहुधा वदȎÂत।

SHRI SITARAM YECHURY: Yes, Rig-Veda tells you that and even your Bhagawad Gita tells you when in the Vishnu Avatar, Krishna comes down and says, “I will protect every human being in every faith that he believes in.” That is what my Mother India teaches me.

So, will you tell me now what I should wear? Will you tell me who will be my friend? Will you tell me what I should eat? Will you tell me,” You are killing cows and I am not”? Now, India is the second largest industry of beef exports in the world, where more than five million people are working there. All of them are what? ‘Antinational’? Are they enemies of the nation? So, that is where, please, at least, if not us—you don’t take our opinion seriously—but you, at least, take the opinion of the G20 that you consider serious or at least, take the opinion of U.S.A. where you have been five times in three years. Take the opinion of New York Times’ editorial. Take what they are saying.

The Prime Minister concentrates on reforms, economic policies and not on this Hindutva agenda. So, stop the country from moving towards a Hindu right. So, these lynchings, Sir, are not isolated incidents of law and order. These lynchings are part of an ideological construct that wants to undermine the secular democratic character of modern India which is there in our Constitution and replace it by whatever they call by their concept of what is called the ‘Hindutva Rashtra’. That is why, this is a serious matter. Sir, that is why, I am beseeching you. Immediately, ban all these cow vigilante groups; ban your anti-Romeo squads.

Some of us have the fortune of being educated in our mother tongue as well as in English but why do you invoke poor Shakespeare into your campaign? Call them by some other name. Why ‘anti-Romeo’? Why do you insult Shakespeare? Why do you call him into this? Anyway, that is an aside. …(Interruptions)… Apart from that, Sir, these groups must be legally banned and let us together build our country in the direction we want to take.

Let us discuss; let us see what is there, Discuss our differences. So, finally, I only beseech all of you, all of us have our beliefs, our ideological convictions ; all of us have our faiths; all of us who are atheists like me.

We have only to tell you, Sir, atheism in Indian ‘parampara’ is as old as Hinduism itself. Charvaka was your first atheist, a Brahman atheist and, therefore, don’t predecide that one is anti-Indian by being an atheist.

We all have our rights. Let us all together stop this degeneration in our country. That is my message to the House and my appeal to the Government to immediately ban these vigilante organizations. (Ends)

(This is the full text, unedited of the speech made by Comrade Sitaram Yechury in Rajya sabha on July 19, 2017. The speech was made during a Short Duration Discussion Arising Out of Reported Increase in Incidents of Lynching and Atrocities on Minorities)

Article was first published on July 20, 2017 in Sabrangindia

The post Ban Private Armies of Gau Rakshaks by Govt Order, Central & State: Sitaram Yechury appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The All India Kisan Sabha (AIKS) mourns the loss of Comrade Sitaram Yechury, a stalwart leader of the working people and the General Secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) since 2015. Comrade Yechury was also a highly regarded Marxist intellectual, a member of the politburo of the CPI(M) since 1992 and an ace parliamentarian. The Polit Bureau of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) also expressed its profound grief at the passing away of Comrade Sitaram Yechury,

An exceptionally brilliant student, Sitaram Yechury got radicalised in the turbulent decade of the 1970s and rose as a towering student leader from JNU. He was elected as JNU Students Union President thrice. In JNU, he led a legendary struggle against emergency.  He was also elected as the All India President of the Students Federation of India (SFI) from 1984-86. Both the Polit Bureau of the CPI-M and the AIKS has issued a moving statement signed by Ashok Dhawale President and Vijoo Krishan its general secretary this evening.

Throughout his political life, Yechury remained as one of the sharpest critics of imperialism and neo-colonialism. His lifelong commitment to resolving the “agrarian question” made him close to the peasantry and the Kisan movement, states the AIKS in its statement. In the early 1990s, when the different factions of the ruling class and their intellectuals collaborated to impose neo-liberal policies, Comrade Yechury stood like a rock with the peasantry and other working people. With his in-depth theoretical understanding of political economy, he clinically diagnosed that peasantry will be devastated with the neo-liberal reforms. His widely acclaimed essay “Why This Economic Policy” gave much clarity into the predation of imperialism and monopolies.

Comrade Yechury consistently connected the rise of Hindutva fascistic forces in India with the ascendancy and the hegemony of global finance. He was a firm believer in and always reiterated that only the worker-peasant alliance can halt the Hindutva juggernaut. Sitaram Yechury was the Editor of the Party’s weekly paper, People’s Democracy, for over two decades. He was also a prolific writer. His other main contribution in the ideological field was his critique of Hindutva, which was published in his books – What is this `Hindu Rashtra’? and Communalism vs Secularism.

Sitaram Yechury served two terms in the Rajya Sabha from 2005 to 2017. During both his terms, he was exceptional in articulating class issues of the working people. When the Modi regime wanted to intensify corporatisation in agriculture, Yechury was at the forefront uniting various opposition forces in the Parliament as well as on the streets. Yechury ferociously fought the attempts to give away India’s agriculture to monopolies at a throwaway price. His insights into the emerging contradictions in the agrarian realm nourished the anti-corporate Kisan movement.

In recent years, Sitaram Yechury devoted a lot of his time and energy towards forging a broad unity of the secular opposition parties, which took the shape of the INDIA bloc.  In both the period of the United Front government and later the UPA government, Sitaram was one of the key interlocutors for the CPI (M), which was supporting these coalitions.

Given his amiable temperament, he had a wide circle of friends across the political spectrum and in all walks of life.  He was respected by all for his political integrity and commitment. The untimely demise of Sitaram Yechury at this crucial juncture in our national politics is a big blow for the CPI(M) and a grievous loss for the Left, democratic and secular forces.

The most fitting tribute to Comrade Yechury, a committed internationalist and anti-imperialist Marxist-Leninist will be to intensify struggles against all forms of exploitation, states  The AIKS. AIKS dips the red flag in the memory of Comrade Sitaram Yechury’s meaningful life. Red Salute to Comrade Sitaram Yechury!

Related:

Defending the Constitution, not just my right, but my duty: Sitaram Yechury

Yechury Writes to ECI on Voter ID-Aadhar Linking

Sitaram Yechury rips apart Delhi police probe into #DelhiRiots2020

The post CPI-M Polit Bureau and AIKS dip the Red Flag in memory of Comrade Sitaram Yechury appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In an alarming letter to the Election Commission of India, Sitaram Yechury, general secretary of Communist Party of India (Marxist) has taken note of concerns of security, privacy and voter deletions with the Aadhaar Voter ID linking, that the ECI has decided to restart now.

According to the EC the linking of voter ID cards with Aadhaar cards is being done with a view to establish the identity of electors and authentication of entries in the electoral roll.

In the letter, Yechury pointed that “As part of this exercise several Chief Electoral Officers across the country have obtained the Aadhaar data of voters from several other databases like NPR, PDS and State Resident Data Hubs(SRDH). These electoral offices linked Aadhaar with Voter ID of 31 crore voters without informing the individual voters and instead using algorithms to automatically link them based on already existing data.”

“This process has resulted in voter deletions across the country and in particular in the state of Telangana, where the NERP-AP exercise of Aadhaar with Voter ID was originally developed,” he stated.

With all these previous electoral malpractices with regards to Aadhaar, Yechury has found the lack of consultations with political parties before the start of this process as concerning.

He said, “India currently does not have a data protection or privacy law and neither does the Election Commission of India have a privacy policy with regards to maintenance of Aadhaar data of voters. The stated purpose of the Aadhaar voter ID linking is primarily to remove duplicate voters, but with concerns of duplicate Aadhaar raised by CAG in its report on UIDAI, this is a hasty exercise.”

“It is the duty of the Election Commission of India to investigate these serious lapses in voter deletions and data breaches that occurred. The Election Commission of India is mandated to protect the constitutional rights of the voters. Until the Election Commission produces an investigation report into these incidents, and comes out with a clear checks and balances this linking exercise must be kept under abeyance,” Yechury stated.

The Election Laws (Amendment) Bill, authorising the linking of Aadhaar with Voter IDs, was passed by the Lok Sabha through a voice vote in December 2021.

Yechury has demanded that ECI must delete all the Aadhaar data collected before the amendments to the Representation of People’s Act in 2021 allowing this linking procedure.

“With the lack of a data protection law, we oppose any potential sharing of all Voter-IDs linked with Aadhaar to be shared with the Ministry of Home Affairs for either for the purpose of building the NATGRID database, the National Population Registry, the National Registry of Citizens and any new and upcoming databases of birth and death registries. We oppose usage of this data collected only for electoral purposes to be used for other purposes and demand a purpose limitation for this data,” Yechury said.

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post Yechury Writes to ECI on Voter ID-Aadhar Linking appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPIM) General Secretary Sitaram Yechury’s son Ashish Yechury died due to Covid-19 early morning on April 22, 2021.

Announcing his son’s death at Gurgaon Medanta hospital on Twitter Yechury said, “It is with great sadness that I have to inform that I lost my elder son, Ashish Yechury to COVID-19 this morning. I want to thank all those who gave us hope and who treated him – doctors, nurses, frontline health workers, sanitation workers and innumerable others who stood by us.”

Ashish, who nearly completed 35 years of age, graduated from the Asian College of Journalism (ACJ) in Chennai. Later on, he worked as a copy editor for Times of India in Delhi. Journalists who remembered him from years of work expressed their grief on social media.

Journalist and former colleague Vasudha Venugopal said, “What a horrible day. Two former colleagues I distinctly remember as being warm & friendly when I first joined work here, passed away today. This is just getting worse.”

Similarly, journalist and ACJ Adjunct Faculty member R. K. Radhakrishnan said, “Woke up to the terrible news of the death of Sitaram Yechury’s son, Ashish, of Covid. I’ve seen him at the ACJ campus a few times where he was a student. Wonder how parents deal with the death of such a promising, young person! All the words in the world are suddenly useless.”

Members of the CPIM-Polit Bureau and the All India Kisan Sabha offered their condolences to his father, his mother Indrani Majumdar, his wife Swati and his sister Alka.

Related:

Centre is shying away from its responsibility towards vaccine provision: Mamata Banerjee

Maharashtra: Think of lockdown after-effects, not just vaccination, says the Jan Arogya Abhiyan

UP Panchayat elections: Polling in Lucknow, Varanasi and Muzaffarnagar today

Covid-19: Bihar Hospitals face shortage of beds, patients being turned away

The post Sitaram Yechury’s son succumbs to Covid-19 appeared first on SabrangIndia.