Issue of Medical Ethics in India

By Vidya Bhushan Rawat

It was an invitation that I could not ignore as the subject was close to my heart and being organized by a premier medical institution in the capital of India. The issue was ‘medical ethics’ and the main speaker was a humanist philosopher from Utrecht University in Netherlands. As it was being organized for the students, who were future doctors emerging out from this premier institution, my friend suggested that there could be two other speakers who should express their opinion in the beginning for the benefits of the students. One was a former alumnus of the institution; a well-known doctor now settled in US but is contemplating to start working with communities in India and second was myself who was supposed to give some factual analysis of what happens here in India.

The other speaker finished in 5 minute time allotted to him and the host invited me to speak of my experiences so that our main speaker also has an idea. I started through bullet points and wanted to inform that I do not generalize but all these things have happened and we face it, though there are exceptions.

‘Friends, a few days back three sanitation workers died cleaning the sewage line in the Indira Gandhi National Centre for Art. The police took their bodies to Ram Manohar Lohia hospital and all the three were declared brought dead but their details were mentioned as unknown, unidentified etc. and their families got information next morning. There is no cooperation with families of the poor.

In Uttar-Pradesh and Bihar, most of the Primary Health Centers do not have proper facilities and sweepers and non-medical staff do even perform minor surgeries. You might have seen latest report of death of a child in Balia on the NDTV. I want to tell you why this happen. It reflects the class-caste bias among our medical fraternity. Since the upper caste-class in the villages or rural India prefer to private hospitals, it is the rural poor who go to these PHCs and hence we don’t want to touch them. It is this prejudices that we carry on further that result in unwanted deaths.

In Delhi, I am amazed to see the small temples outside the ICUs of many prestigious hospitals where people go and break coconut before entering the ICU. Is that ethical? Should we allow such thing inside the hospitals? Does it not violate the spirit of inquiry and scientific temperament?

My own experience at a hospital was that doctors don’t really appreciate when you want to donate organs and body after death.

The emergency wards of most of hospitals are horrible. I have gone through personal experiences when in a place like AIIMS, we had to wait since morning and finally the patient could only be admitted in the evening at 9 pm.

The doctors and nurses speak with their patient in most rustic way and forget that patient too deserve respect from the doctors and their staff. In the big hospitals, doctors do not inform the patients or their wards about the ailment and most shocking are the event when due to lack of money hospitals refused to give away the dead body.

Gynecologists normally discourage women for family planning if they have daughters.

Today, many of the psychiatrists in Delhi are promoting the ‘Gayatri Mantra’ to get rid of tension. What will they advise to Muslims, Christians or atheists to get rid of depression?

And finally, dear friends, the biggest ethics is to treat each patient without discriminating on the basis of their identity. You must have heard Praveen Togadia. Some people say, he was a doctor…’ (I am not allowed to complete my statement by a teacher who gets up and snatch microphone from my hand)

Suddenly, there is unease in the heart of some one. The participants are listening but the man at the end row gets up shouting,’ why have we been invited to ‘waste’ our time here? It is an ‘academic’ seminar and we cannot allow ‘anyone’ to speak here’. I am taken aback but keep my calm. The students and audience are stunned. The man comes and snatches the microphone from my hand. He does not allow me to speak. He just asks me to go. I don’t know how to react as every institution has a hierarchy. I give in and silently go and sit on my seat. I don’t retaliate as I feel the people who have invited me should have done or may have their problems. The ‘professor’ now takes charge.  He starts condemning me and countering everything that I spoke. He justifies statues of gods and goddesses inside the hospitals suggested there was nothing wrong with Gayatri Mantra to give ‘strength’ to patient. Everybody is just shocked. Anyway, I decide not to walk out as I was not a designated speaker but only requested to speak. I want to listen to the guest from Netherlands and hence decide to not to make a fuss of it but as I don’t know the internal politics inside the institution which is very natural in all these big institutions.

Our friend from Netherlands speaks and explain beautiful what medical ethics is and the issue he focuses on is that  we have to go beyond just being ‘doctor’ in technical sense. We have to respect scientific temperament and have humanist values. He spoke about prejudices of different kinds in our societies everywhere and how and why the doctors should keep away from it. We cannot be seen supporting alternative medical methods. We have to support all that which come through scientific inventions after years of hard work. Of-course, he raises the issues of prejudices against untouchables and disabled people. In many countries, there is a clear war against homo sexual and therefore he suggest that the doctors cannot go according to the prevailing notions of society but according to what science is and what medical research speak about.

After the lecture is over the students are silent but the organizers tried to have some questions answer session but not everyone is ready after all this. A girl stood up and asked how to deal with homo sexuality issue in India where society still treats it as taboo. And again this philosopher friend speak with same conviction that according to all report, there is nothing wrong about homo sexuality and it is the decision of two individuals to decide how should they live. We cannot criminalize homo sexuality and their country was the first one to allow the gay marriages too.

Feeling much uncomfortable again, this ‘professor’ again gets up to argue against that. ‘I have no problem with homo sexuality but it cannot be termed as normal behavior as there are no studies suggesting that. We live in a society which does not respect it. How can we justify gay marriages?’

The hall is silence and none want to respond to him. The silence has said so many things. The students in these institutions live under tremendous pressure and hence try not to offend their faculties. Secondly, these institutions still have people who are actually a shame to the name of teaching profession. It is also true that all kind of elements have entered into the medical profession who join it to earn money and in that humanity becomes the biggest victim of their deeds. The fact that we still feel sympathetic to the likes of Praveen Togadia and Maya Kodnani, shows that we still carry our caste and religious prejudices along with us and medical ethics don’t work for us. I am happy that most of the teachers that I spoke afterwards agreed with my view point though they disagreed direct ‘naming’ of an individual though I felt they should have stood up and objected but I also know that these institutions are always suffer from inter departmental politics and games are played to disturb the programme and hence I did not fall prey to their politics and kept quiet.

The profession of a doctor is noble one. They were considered as God. Their soft voice worked like balm on the patient. I never generalize the issue but the trend is visible. And when we were discussing things at the college, it means we are friends of society, after all, those who invited me to their institutions have been aware of my writings and my work for long. Even if they have not known my work, what were the things which violated the basic ethics? Did I speak anything which violate the basic decency but what I realize very fast was that once I uttered Togadia, the professor could actually visualize as what was coming next and being a sympathizer or a member of the organization, he could not allow such things to go but these fellows do not know that they can stop me from their institution but not from general public.

It is shameful that academic institutions where the freedom of expression and dissent should be honored are becoming highly intolerant to criticism. Each philosophy and ideology failed here because the caste and religious prejudices. The arrogance of being ‘powerful’ and ‘twice born’ still exist in our society. Medical profession has grown tremendously and money has become the major criteria yet with in this age of market and money, modernity has become the biggest victim. Medical ethics transcends nationality, caste, religious and all kind of boundaries and that is why doctors have been respected world over as their only respect is meant for humanity and trying to save a human life irrespective of his faith and political ideologies which actually look dim in India where our prejudices are superseding them. It is time the institutions start a cleanup operation so that our doctors are not just respected for their knowledge but also for their human values and medical ethics too. Our academic institutions can only do it once they shed their caste prejudices and allow wider diversity in these places of learning so that India as a whole grow and people here particularly those who are poor and not among ‘them’, do not suffer out of these prejudices.

Republic of Fear : Part II

By Vidya Bhushan Rawat

The third day of our Humanize India ended up with a pleasant surprise when two journalists came to our place in the Buddha Vihara in Kushinagar and sought an interview with me about the initiative. After our talks he wondered as why we were not putting our thoughts in a college or degree college. I mentioned that the colleges here have already decided that they would not listen to us. My young colleagues had spoken to several teachers and principals in the college here who pointed out various mistakes in our pamphlets yet felt that what we can do with it as it was not possible to dismantle caste system. The Kushwaha Budddhist Bikhus had already warned us that it is impossible to break the nexus of caste system and we were doing an impossible journey to dismantle the caste system.

Our local organizers and some of the friends of always afraid of the points we would possible raise and that is one reason why the two important colleges in Kushingar did not listen to us. It was clear that they felt that we would speak the language which would ‘hurt’ the students. But the talks with the principle of Buddha Degree College, which was established as a primary school in 1934 really encouraged us and despite the early morning timings, we decided to go and share our thoughts with the students.
It was a dense fog morning and visibility was nearly zero when we started from the Buddha Vihara we were staying. All of us got up early to make it to the college despite the fact that we knew that most of the students would not be able to make it due to severe cold and deeply dense fog. As we reached the college, the staff took us to the principle and finally he agreed that we meet at the college prayer ground. Over 500 students had gathered up that time to listen to us in the open. After our live performances of miracle exposure and humanist songs, I spoke and the children listened carefully. ‘ We do not speak against corruption around us because our daily engagements with caste and other forms of discriminations are very high. A very high number of our children are suffering in malnutrition and have no milk to drink yet every day we see millions of liters of milk being poured to keep Lord Shiva Happy. We offer banana to the God but keep our children hungry’, I said. There was a great deal of happiness among the children when we spoke against caste discrimination and Untouchability when we mentioned Article 51A of Indian constitution which talks of promoting scientific temperament and humanism.

After the show was over, the principle invited us to his room. He thanked us for a wonderful awareness programme. Many teachers came and appreciated the initiative. They discussed our contents. ‘ Your programme is absolutely fantastic and must be carried forward as it is promoting scientific temperament, said an old teacher and added that it need some modification and correction. We are always ready to admit to our mistakes, I said. No, you are doing a great service but you need to be careful of making statements. You should know that we have a great cultural heritage and you have directly attacked it. Why are you targeting people fasting or offering milk to Shiva. This is India’s greatest strength, he said. You should respect ‘freedom of expression’, said the teacher and allow the others to do so. Another one joined to give me more knowledge as why Soviet Union collapsed because they did not allow ‘freedom of religion’ to people. Then he went on to say as why Marxists lost Bengal because they did not allow freedom of religion in West Bengal.

Interestingly, all these statements are absurd as Russia is still the biggest country of the world and the reality is that it did not want to carry the burden of so many ill economies along with it. It crumbled economically carrying the burden of all other nations otherwise the mighty Russia would not have allowed the country to secede but its constitutions had allowed that. Secondly, the notion that Marxists in India are anti-religion is as farce as to say that the saffron gangs are ‘spiritual’. They did not touch any social issues and Bengal remains one of the most religious societies of our time despite all the claims of enlightenment.

It was interesting to see how a few teachers at the degree college felt offended. What is freedom of expression, I asked. ‘You do not speak about Muslims’, he said. ‘Do I need to condemn Muslims every time, if I am speaking about the social evils in our society’, I asked. Is condemning Muslims is the certificate of honesty of ideology. ‘No, we do not speak against terrorism’, one of them said. I am sorry sir, I said, please organise a seminar and I am ready for a one to one dialogue. ‘But you should know that Gandhi never condemn religion. In fact, he has asked everyone to study Gita and Ramayana but still he is the greatest one of the world, he said. ‘I am sorry sir, I said respectfully. Gandhi lead India’s freedom movement and I respect his contribution but I do not want to take his ‘spiritualism’ with me which is nothing but entrenched in deeply flawed conservative ideas which are superfluous in today’s age. But Gandhi is a world icon, said one of them. Yes Sir, Gandhi Jayanti is celebrated officially and that is why people do not attend it. Children do not read him. I would suggest you to attend any function on Ambedkar Jayanti and only then you will realize the difference between the two leaders and how people perceive them at the people’s level.
It was an irony that this debate was happening at a place which was the centre of Buddha’s preaching and where legendary Rahul Sanrktyayan had got stopped the play of Ramleela in 1930s. The most surprising thing is that the teaching staff felt that we are not respecting people’s right to offer milk and right to fasting without giving us right to critique religious dogmas. Why is this fear from critiquing religion? Have we stopped any one from keeping fast or going to temples? Have we stopped any one from celebrating festivities? Yes, we condemn all kind of fundamentalism and we are not enamoured with Muslim or Christian fanatics and have always spoken against all forms of oppression without any conditionality’s. Who are the people denying us freedom of expressions?

The questions that we are raising are uncomfortable but we know it is also strengthening those who have kept quiet for years. At places we spoke against internal untouchability and brought people together. In the colleges we are speaking for women’s right and mind your language. We are in a society which needed a complete overhaul. It needs people of great convictions to speak up against these evils. It is not an easy task. Speaking with freedom in Delhi is easier then throwing open the challenge at the den of oppressions where feudal enjoyed their social power. The satisfying thing was that some of these teachers who always stood on the sidelines came to congratulate me for ‘successful’ mission. The principle of the college was silently smiling and nodding in appreciation. We had realized the dynamics of caste and how powerful it was. The positive thing is that we became the voice for those who wanted to speak the same things but perhaps keeping things in their heart. They were happy with the fact that we are talking of the great Indian cultural heritage of carvak, Buddha, Kabir, Nanaka, Ravidas, Rahul Sankrityayan, Baba Saheb Ambedkar, Periyar, Phule, Bhagat Singh, Sahir, Faiz, Firaq, Shailendra and thousands of those who wanted this country to be an enlightened one where each one of us enjoy our individuality without any reference to caste and religion.

M.N.Roy and his idea of Buddhism

M.N. Roy on Brahminical Religion and Buddhism

Vidya Bhushan RAWAT

“Societal violation of human rights is as serious, if not more than, state violation. And, caste divides, and divisiveness and dissension will always stand in the way of India’s progress. If we want India to occupy her rightful place in the comity of nations, we must recognize that the worst forms of human rights violations and infringements of civil liberties are caused by the ‘varnavayvastha’ directly or indirectly,’ say Dr R.M.Pal in his background paper of the seminar. There were a number of intellectuals in per-independent India who waged war on the system referred to here. M.N.Roy was one of them. This paper makes an attempt to analyze his views and philosophy.

The values of human dignity and human rights in India were recognized in ancient India despite the fact that the varna system looked down upon various sects which were considered not only untouchables but un-seeable as well. Right from the time of the Buddha there have been various movements against the cultural violation of human rights. The caste based Hindu society virtually looked down, with utter contempt, upon Dalits, women and working masses. They were relegated to the status of shudras and avarnas whose very sight could pollute a Brahmin, supposed to be the brokers of God.

Buddha was against the caste system. He desanskritised the education system, by preaching ‘pali” language which is voxpopuli of the time. For the first time education was allowed for even the outcastes. ‘Education for all’ was Buddha’s special gift to India. That women were allowed to become nun-monks was an extraordinary achievement in the circumstances and condition prevailing in India at that time. Mahavira was also a progressive intellectual and fought against orthodoxy. In the medieval period, Nanak, Shaikh Farid, Kabir and other Sufis fought against the caste system.

II
Since I am going to deal with M.N.Roy’s views on Buddhism I may refer to Dr Ambedkar’s conversion to Buddhism. He said: “There are two aspects of conversion, social as well as religious, material as well as spiritual. Whatever may be the aspects or line of thinking it is necessary to understand the beginning, the nature of untouchability and how it is practiced? Without this understanding, you will not be able to realize the real meaning underlying my declaration of conversion. In order to have a clear understanding of untouchability and its practice in real life, I want you to recall stories of the atrocities perpetrated against you. Very few of you might have realized why all this happens. To me it is very necessary, that we understand it.” While deciding to embrace Buddhism, he said: “Three factors are required for the uplift of an individual. They are sympathy, equality and liberty. Can you say by experience that any of these factors exist for you in Hinduism? The Hindus can be ranked among those cruel people whose utterances and acts are two poles apart. They have this Ram on their tongues and a knife under their armpits. They speak like saints and but act like butchers”1. Citing his reason for embracing Buddhism in a broadcast on All India Radio on October 3rd, 1954, he said: “Every man should have a philosophy, for every one must have a standard by which to measure his conduct. Negatively, I reject Hindu social philosophy propounded in the Bhagwatgita based as it is, on the Triguna philosophy of the Sankhya philosophy, which in my judgment is a cruel perversion of the philosophy, which in my judgement is a cruel perversion of the philosophy of Kapila, and which had made the caste system and the system of graded inequality the law of Hindu social life. Positively my social philosophy may be said to be enshrined in three words: liberty, equality and fraternity. My philosophy has roots in religion and not in political science. I have derived them from the teachings of my Master, the Buddha”2.

Apropos of Buddhism and fight against harmful theories of Hinduism on the philosophical and ideological plane, one Indian who stand out but who is not widely read, is M.N.Roy. Even a cursory study of Roy and Ambedkar would indicate how close their philosophical postulates are. Born a Brahmin, Roy worked with Lenin and Stalin and occupied the highest positions in the communist hierarchy, the Communist International. Subsequently, he gave up communism, went beyond communism and propounded his philosophy of scientific humanism. Roy was the only Marxist who came down heavily on the Brahminical social order of Sanskritic Hinduism and remained so until the last day of his life. Almost all his writings during the period 1930-36 while he was in jail are devoted to this aspect. Many of these were printed and reprinted during his life time.

One such treatise is Materialism in which Roy explains the rational Indian philosophy of Lokayata, Charvak Darshan and Buddhism. “The spiritual revolt represented by the Indian materialists eventually culminated in the rise of Buddhism which all but liquidated the Vadic natural religion and freed India from Brahminical domination for several hundred years. Internal evidence proves that Vedanta sutras were composed for combating Buddhism. Therefore, they could not be regarded as the direct outcome of the speculative thought recoded in the Upanishads. The composition of earlier Upnishads and Vedanta Sutras must have been separated by several hundred years, during which period the spiritual development of India, was in the direction of materialism, represented by Kanada, Kapila and many others, and of rationalism, represented by the Buddhists and Jains subsequently. The triumph of Buddhism and its supremacy for so many centuries, prove that the metaphysical school of thought, and rationalism. It was only after the defeat of the Buddhist revolution that Vedantist metaphysics and pantheism were revived as the ideology of Brahminical orthodoxy.”3

The idealistic deviation of Buddhist philosophy was caused by its having enlisted the patronage of the upper classes. “In order to refute Brahminical dogma of eternal truth the rebels expounded the doctrines of momentariness of everything. In course of time, the doctrine of temporariness was applied not only to the physical but also to the mental phenomena. When the more civilized Dravidians were subjugated by the pastoral Aryans, the latter imposed upon the former social laws which checked the growth of the trading class and consequently of free thought. As regards the happiness of material possessions, of the beef-eating and soma drinking, the vedic priests were not averse to it. But in order to retain the position of power and privilege they could not let the masses participate in that happiness. Hence the spiritual superiority’ of Indo-Aryan culture”4.

Commending the role of Buddhism towards a just and rationale society Roy writes: “As the composite outcome of all the positive elements in the whole pervious history of Indian thought, Buddhism shook the very foundation of the hoary edifice of Brahminical orthodoxy. It disputed the authority of scriptures, vigorously condemned the sacrificial rites and rituals of the Vedic Natural Religion, it denied the existence even of an impersonal First Cause (the Brahman of the Upnishads_, and it discarded the doctrine of soul. For the first time, there began to develop in India a system of truly philosophical thought, having for its point of departure the atomism of the Nyaya-Vaisheshikha system and rationalist-mechanistic conception of nature contained in the Sankhya system”5.

An original thinker much ahead of his time, Roy was an iconoclast. He writes in his book, Fascism: Its Philosophy, Professions and Practice, while in jail 1930-36: “Incidentally, it may be mentioned that the roots of the philosophy of Fascism can be traced in the divine philosophy of the Gita, according to which all power (bhibhutis) on earth are the powers of God. Thus, philosophically, Fascism has no philosophy. Fascist philosophy is the logical outcome of the spiritualist way of life. The logical connection between the doctrines preached in the Gita and the Fascist neo-Hegelian metaphysical conception of the state, is easily perceived. As a matter of fact, the philosophy of Fascist dictatorship results directly from the modern schools of mysticism and spiritualism which represent reaction against the scientific view of life. Its Indian ancestry can be traced through Schopenhauer whose disciple Nietzsche, was the father of the philosophy of Fascism”6.

Indian establishment intellectuals never thought that the nationalism, even the one preached by Gandhiji, could give rise to fascist forces in the country. What we are witnessing today is fascism in the form of invocation of Hindutva cult and cultural nationalism in our country. If we analyse the events of Babri Masjid demolition and Pokharan nuclear explosions and how the Hindutva forces were dancing in the street as a symbol of Hindu victory, we can see the fascist tendencies of Hindutva forces coming to the fore thus proving Roy correct after so many years.

In his book New Orientation about how fascism will enter India, Roy observes: “Fascism is not a platonic idea like cowhood or treehood or horsehood, for all actual cows or trees or horses to fit in. fascism is a socio-political manifestation of our time and its pattern is determined by the peculiarities of the country in which it grows. In Germany fascism was different from that of Italy and fascism in the East European countries were different from the both. Therefore, we should not have an a priori notion about our enemy. Neither will Subhas Bose return as Indian Mussolini, nor Patel be Hitler of India. To put the point straight: Indian Fascism will be cultural; it will be a cultural reaction. Therefore, violence may not be such a very outstanding feature of Indian fascism… the Indian people can be more easily regimented spiritually because thanks to our cultural tradition they are predisposed that way”7.

Roy’s criticism of Indian nationalism and the nationalist leaders including Gandhiji might be based on his analysis as a Marxist but the fact remains that many Indian leaders were admirers of Hitler and Mussolini. Gandhiji met Mussolini in the 1930s and wrote to Romain Rolland: “Mussolini is an enigma to me. Many of the reforms he has made attract me. He seems to have dome a great deal for the peasantry. Of course the iron glove is there. But allowing that force is the basis of western society, Mussolini’s reforms deserve an impartial study. His care for the poor people, his opposition to over urbanization, his attempt to bring about co-ordination between capital and labour seem to me to demand very careful attention. What strikes me is that behind Mussolini’s ruthlessness is the motive of serving his people. Even behind his bombastic speeches there is a ring of sincerity and burning love for his people. Its also seems to me that the bulk of the Italians like Mussolini’s iron rule.” (Gandhi’s letter to Romain Rolland on Dec 20, 1931, Romain Rolland-Gandhi Correspondence: page 241).8 (It is interesting to note that when Gandhi was praising a fascist dictator, M.N.Roy, sitting in jail, was writing against the philosophy and practice of fascism.)

Roy apprehended that cultural nationalism would be a dangerous thing for India and might be responsible for the rise of a fascist state violating all norms of a civilized society. Today a large number of Hindutvavadi outfits are thriving as cultural nationalists with hardly any opposition from secularists, not even the Royists, who seem to have forgotten the rational and radical message of M.N.Roy. Today, we must understand what actually is this Indian culture, which Roy wanted us to get rid of as this culture gives rise to an unjust hierarchical society” “Spiritual culture has taught the Indian masses to point out the difference in the size of the five fingers of the same hand when their attention is drawn to the social inequity and inequality to which they are subjected. They have taught to accept their position as befitting their merit. They have not only been taught to be reconciled to their hard lot but to look upon the established social order as an expression of divine dispensation. Nietzsche also argued that ‘there being much hard and rought work to be done, some people must be held down in conditions that make them fit for this sort of work’. The entire caste system-that creation of the special genius of India-was inspired by the Aryan spirit of caste when he suggested that ‘masses of Asiatic’ and African barbarians could be imported so that uncivilized world might constantly be at the service of the civilized. Why not? Did not the Aryan Brahmans with the help of their warrior allies, condemn the bulk of the aboriginal population of India to perpetual servitude”9.

Reference may also be made to Roy’s approach to the communal and the Hindu Muslim question, which has continued to be a major source of societal violation of human rights. The only way to solve this problem, according to Roy, was for Hindus to recognize the positive aspects of Islam, and for Muslims to adhere to real Islamic tenets. Roy wrote in the Historical Role of Islam in jail 1930-36: “A critical investigation of the internal as well as external causes of the Muslim conquest of India is of practical value today. It will remove the prejudice that makes the orthodox Hindu look upon his Muslim neighbour as an inferior being. Freed from preconceived ideas, the Hindus will be in a position to appreciate the constructive consequences of Muslim coquets of India. That will enable them to live down the hatred of the conquered for the conquerors. Unless a radical change of attitude is brought about by a sober sense of history, the communal question will never be solved. The Hindus will never be able to look upon the Muslims as integral parts of the Indian nation until they come to appreciate the contribution they made towards the emergence of Indian society out of the chaos caused by the breakdown of the antique civilization. Besides a proper understanding of history derived from a correct understanding of the successful advent of the Muslims in India, will enable us to ascertain and stamp out the deeper causes of our present misfortune”10. “In view of the realistic reading of history, Hindu superciliousness towards the culture and religion of Muslim is absurd. It insults the history and injures the political future of our country. Learning from the Muslims Europe became the leader of modern civilization. Even today her best sons are not ashamed of the past indebtedness. Unfortunately, India could not fully benefit by the heritage of Islamic culture because she did not deserve the distinction. Now in the throes of a belated Renaissance, Indians both Hindus and Muslims could profitably draw inspiration from that memorable chapter of human culture and a proper appreciation of the historical value of that contribution would shock the Hindus out of their arrogant self-satisfaction, and cure the narrow mindedness of the Muslims of our day by bringing them face to face with the true spirit of the faith they profess”11. Else where Roy writes (1948): “Nationalism, heavily tainted by Hindu orthodoxy, bred Muslim communalism. Therefore, the ideal of Hindu-Muslim unity, placed before the country by Gandhiji could not be attained. During his last days he staked his life for restoring communal harmony… communal harmony is not possible in the mediaeval atmosphere of religious orthodoxy and fanaticism.”

Roy waged war against Fascism during the Second World War. He maintained that if the fascists were not defeated, human freedom could not survive and in that eventuality, the question of Indian independence would not arise. India would remain a perpetual slave to fascist powers. It was war between fascism and democracy. So he took a strong stand in favour of full Indian support for British was effort. His main arguments in this regard were: (1) that fascism was the greater evil and all forces should be rallied against it, and (2) that the British would emerge from the war so exhausted militarily and economically that it would have to grant independence to India. Dr Ambedkar joined the Viceroy’s Executive Council as a Member of the Labour Department because he too like Roy and thousands of other Indian intellectuals and leaders wanted that fascism must be defeated.

I may refer to Mr. Arun Shourie’s blasphemous attack on Roy and Ambedkar in his book, Worshipping the False Gods, regarding war efforts in which the Government sanctioned, cleared by the Central Legislature, an amount of Rs 13,000 per moth to Indian Federation of Labour, of which M.N.Roy was General Secretary, for pursuing and organizing anti-fascist activities. Dr Ambedkar as Member, Labour Department disbursed the amount. Roy personally did not receive any amount. His colleagues received the amount. Some of these persons rose to very high positions in free India making immense contribution towards the human rights movement in India and preserving its secular heritage. Mr. V.M.Tarkunde waged war on the rise of fascism in India in was in jail, all anti-fascists fought against the dictatorship of Indira Gandhi. Yet Mr. Arun Shourie, who one of Mr. Tarkunde’s followers in those dark days has now attacked Roy and Ambedkar for aligning themselves with anti-fascist forces which included the British during the second world war. Mr. Arun Shourie, who is today a leading Hindutavavadi intellectual belonging to Sangh Parivar has written the book denouncing Dr Ambedkar, for among other things, fighting the anti-fascist forces and for Shouries’s attack on Roy and Ambedkar is that both of them were philosophically and ideologically opposed to the Brahminical religion; Mr. Arun Shouri, an intellectual leader of the Sangh Parivar, and members of the Sangh Parivar are passionately, emotionally and thoughtlessly attached to the Brahminical religion.

I may quote what Mr V.M. Tarkunde writes in this connection: “Before giving details of this episode, I must explain in short the attitude of M.N.Roy and his colleagues like myself towards the Second World War and its possible impact on India’s struggle for freedom. We were of the view that it was an anti-fascist war, that it was a war, not between fascism and British imperialism, but between fascism and democracy, that if fascism succeeded in the war the result would be that democracy throughout the world would be destroyed and the chances of India acquiring democratic freedom would be wiped out for generations to come, that if on the other hand the war resulted in the defeat of fascism, democracy would be strengthened throughout the world including Great Britain and British imperialism itself would be weekend, that defeat of fascism would thus bring India nearer to the attainment of freedom and that since the defeat of fascism was necessary for our own freedom, we must unconditionally support the Government’s war efforts. We knew that this line of thinking, although quite correct, ran against the anti British sentiments of our people and would be highly unpopular, but the war had created a highly critical situation and we had to tell the people what was in their true interest, however unpalatable the truth may be. We regarded unconditional war support as an essential and vital part of our struggle for freedom. Subsequent history has fully corroborated Roy’s war analysis. I was asked by M.N.Roy in December 1942 whether I could leave my legal practice in Poona and whether I an my wife would become whole time workers of the Radical Democratic Party and the Indian Federation of Labour. I readily agreed and left for Bombay with my wife in January 1943 to do a whole time trade union work. Shortly thereafter Mr. D.R. Pradhan, an I.C.S. officer called me to his office and told me that I would be receiving a cheque of Rs13,000/- every month and that the money was to be utilized for anti-fascist propaganda in the working class in India. I soon received a list of about 50 persons including myself working in different parts of the country who were whole time workers of the Indian Federation of Labour. As far as I remember, the list was given to me by my senior colleague and friend V.B.Karnik (the will known trade union leader). The monthly cheques given to the whole timers varied from Rs 75/- to Rs 150/- per month. Most of the monthly amount was spent in publishing anti-fascist literature and some for traveling expenses. The same system continued when I shifted to Delhi towards the end of 1943. No part of Rs 13,000/- was sent to M.N. Roy who stayed normally at Dehradun. We were, of course, collecting donations for our other expenses from the sympathizers of the Radical Democratic Party and the Indian Federation of Labour. Most of the nearly 50 whole time workers had left their jobs and professions and sacrificed a great deal of work for the pittance which we could afford to give them. I am still deeply moved by the sacrifice they committed during the war period. This is the substance of the grave ‘scandal’ described so vividly by Shri Arun Shourie.

“Mr Jamnadas Mehta (Jamnadas Mehta was an important office bearer of the Indian Federation of Labour to whom Mr. Shourie refers in this book) was not right when he said that Rs 13,000/- per month were not given to the Indian Federation of Labour and that he was not aware of it. I was working in our Delhi office at that time and I found a letter in our record signed by Mr Jamanadas Mehta which showed that he was aware of the grant of Rs. 13,000/- per month from the beginning and approved of the acceptance of the grant. I published a photocopy of the letter in the daily Vanguard which was produced and edited in Delhi by my friend the late Ram Singh. On Dr Ambedkar’s request I sent him a copy of the issue which reproduced Mr. Jamnadas Mehta’s letter. Mr. Jamnadas Mehta never denied his signature.

“Turning to other amount of Rs 13,000/- per month sent by the Government to the manager of the Weekly Independent India, which was then published from Delhi and was edited by M.N. Roy from Dehradun, I know the essential facts of the case because my wife worked as manager of Independent India. The Government of India had sent us a list of persons sot whom complimentary amounted to Rs 13,000/- per month. Independent India was always a non-profit journal. More subscribers did not imply any profit to the journal or to those who produced it. The journal had started much before the war (in April 1937) and continued after the Government subscription terminated. It is still being produced since about 1949 it was called The Radical Humanist and it became a monthly journal from April 1970”12.

Roy believed like Ambedkar that unless the Congress fought for a social revolution there would be no benefit of this so called political freedom. In his manifesto for the RPIWC, (Revolutionary Party of Indian Working Class) Roy expressed his deep resentment over Congress’s political resolution of political freedom. “The Congress failed to develop the popular anti-imperialist forces because its ideal of swaraj, even if this is interpreted as complete independence, does not represent the social revolution which is a historic necessity as the overthrow of imperialism is necessary as a prelude to the long delayed social revolution, (the) political freedom of India will be conquered by the forces making social revolution. The goal of national freedom abstracted from a comprehensive programme of social revolution will never be realizes. The congress has been endeavoring to lead the masses towards this goal of simple political freedom”13.

Emphasizing the need to work for social freedom first, Roy exhorted his followers: “Unless you are ready to carry though the historical necessary social revolution political freedom will never be attained. The oppressed and exploited masses being the forces irreconcilably antagonistic to imperialist domination the struggle for national freedom must coincide with the struggle for the social emancipation of toiling masses. A party that does not consciously stand for the welfare of the masses against the privilege of the upper classes and carry on incessant struggle to promote the welfare, is incapable of leading the movement for the national freedom to victory. The future of the nation as a whole will have precedence over the present fortunate few who constitute a vociferous minority of the nation. No nation can prosper and progress as long as the productive masses constituting its overwhelming majority languish in economic bankruptcy, social stagnation, intellectual backwardness and culture reaction”14. What Roy said long ago characterize the present situation, in all details, in our independent India today.

Roy was among those very few intellectuals who had the courage to disown the Vendanta theory as well as Karma philosophy of the Gita which violate the basic human rights. He studied the Lokayat Darshan of Indian philosophy and many other schools of Indian philosophy such as Charvak, Buddhism, Jainism etc. to put fourth his view points vigorously and in a forthright manner, at a time when people in the Congress party were hell-bent on communalizing the national movement and nationalizing the Hindu festivals. He had the courage to speak out and make himself unpopular.

I will conclude my paper with one more quotation from Roy’s writings. Roy, while narrating an ancient story, writes: “Barahmihir, for example, describes a conversation between two men in a sad plight. One voicing the spirit of revolt, naturally endangered by intolerable oppression says, ‘we are suffering for the ill-doings of our king.’ There upon, the not true; our suffering is the fruit of our own actions of past life.’ The doctrine of Karma, the belief in the transmigration of soul, here stands in its real significance. These doctrines of ‘spiritualist’ philosophy were expounded by the rishis of old with the object of making the masses feel themselves responsible for their misery and thus be reconciled to. The attitude of the second man exonerated the oppressor from all responsibility, and the established social order is guaranteed against the danger of a threating popular revolt”15. Hindutvavadis are today alarmed by the prospect of a revolt, hence some of their “theoreticians” have come down heavily on Ambedkar and his Dalit followers and on M.N. Roy.

Roy’s philosophy is of immense importance today at a time when the fascist forces of Hindutva are intoxicated by the heady wine, cultural nationalism. While Ambedkar, Buddha and Gandhi have become “pratah Smaraniya” for the Sangh Parivar-a clever way to assimilate their ideologies-in actual fact it is to misrepresent their ideologies.

It has been a great loss for the country that intellectual giants like Roy, Periyar and Ambedkar could not come to one platform and lead India towards the much awaited social revolution. It is time those of us who are working for the social revolution, initiate a dialogue among the followers of various revolutionaries for a better understanding of our social movements of the past and need for a common cause in the future, otherwise the political independence of India will have no meaning without realization of human rights of millions of the down trodden-the Dalits including the Adivasis and the Muslim minority, and now the Christian minority and women. (This is a revised version of my paper presented before the Seminar on human rights organized by Indian Social Institute, New Delhi on November 13th and 14th 1998).

1 Ahir D.C., The Legacy of Dr. Ambedkar, 1990, B.R. Publishing Corporation, New Delhi. Page:21-22
2 ibid. chapter ‘Pilgrimage to Buddhism’ Page 154
3 “Materialism” in Selected Works of M.N.Roy, volume IV: 1932-1936, Oxford University Press, 1997,
edited by Sibnarayan Ray, Page 326.
4 Ibid. Page 343
5 ibid. Page 335
6 Fascism: Its Philosophy, Professions and Practice, in Volume IV, Selected Works of M.N. Roy, Page 432-
433
7 New Orientation, by Ajanta Publications, New Delhi, 1981
8 Romain Rolland – Gandhi Correspondence, Publication Divisions, Ministry of Broadcasting, New Delhi, Second Edition, 1990, Page 241.
9 Selected Works of M.N. Roy, Volume IV: 1932-1936, Oxford University Press, 1997, Edited by
Sibnarayan Ray, Chapter Fascism: Page 437
10 ibid under chapter “The Historical Role of Islam”, Page 400
11 ibid Page 401
12 Justice V.M.Tarkunde’s letter to the Editor of Asian Age (taken from Mr. Tarkunde’s personal
correspondence).
13 ibid. Page 215 under chapter “Manifesto of the RPIWC’.
14 ibid. Page 220 under chapter “Manifesto of RPIWC”.
15 ibid. “Crime and Karma”, in selected works of M.N. Roy, Page: 516-517

Ambedkar : an Argumentative Indian

Ambedkar’s idea of a humanist India

By Vidya Bhushan Rawat


When we see the chaos in India and the flirtation of its political class with the fundamentalist forces, Ambedkar and his forthright views are always a reminder to us. The man one side took on Gandhi for his parochial views but on the otherside did not leave the Muslim leagues for instigating hatred. It is a man of Ambedkar’s stature who walks out of meeting with Pope just because he never liked the ambiguity of Pope’s argument. It was the time when Gandhi, and Pope were gods of their respective faith. Who could walk out of the meeting with Pope because he was the biggest man of Christian world? We know how isolated he was when he took on Gandhi, a Mahatma for upper caste Hindus as Ambedkar did not have that many people to defend him that time as he has today when every one try to prove his loyalty to him. Today, when the crisis in our forests zones have escalated and when some of us question the mode of fight, we are often told that there is no option except to pick up guns. The poor will always pick up guns, they say. Revolutions world over happened with guns they say though they do not say while they want this revolution from tribal only, why not uniting all the poor of India.

Well, I would not like to comment upon the revolutions elsewhere but I can definitely talk about the revolution in India which is silent revolution where millions of Dalits are now joining the mainstream of India. They are not just joining jobs but leading their respective political parties, doing business and writing their own stories. The fact is that the problems of Dalits were more acute and racial in nature than the issue of tribals. It is not to put down the tribal issues as nothing but the difference is clear that the Dalits were not fighting against state, they were fighting for their own space as they know if that is not ensured no state would do justice to them.

Ambedkar therefore concentrated on the social system first. It is very difficult to fight against the social order in the height of a campaign for ‘India’s independence’. Many might say that Ambedkar was a constitutionalists and that the Dalits have now forgotten to fight but the fact is that it is not just Ambedkar, but Jyoti Ba Phule, Chatripati Shahuji Maharaj, EV Ramaswamy Naicar and in later Kanshiramji, all believed in political solutions to the issue of Dalit Bahujans. And they mobilized people politically and definitely won their battles. The battle to change a system does not end with one revolution. It is a continuous process. No political leader, Mahatma or any body can claim that he or she would get all that she thought during the life time. The process of change is a continuous process.

The historic legacy of the Dalit Bahujan’s world was the world of freedom of ideas and expression. Ambedkar is central to this theme. He is the center of these ideas of modernity and change. Unlike those who fight against state with guns and weapons and condemn it for all their problems, Ambedkar challenged the non state actors and put the onus on state to implement modern laws that would help not only Dalits and others but respect their right to be an individual.

A supporter of individual’s right, Ambedkar had visualized that if the political constitution does not do justice to his people, they would blow it up some day. Ambedkar’s faith in the ideals of democracy and liberalism were extraordinary. His likes and dislikes were clear. He never like ambiguous answers to his questions. The fact is that after facing so much of discrimination could have easily picked up guns and provided that kind of solution but he did nothing of that short. He had essentially realized the condition of his community and so was fighting for a long battle.

He not only exposed the Hindu myths and its social order but also studied other alternatives. He was an argumentative Indian who was not just well read but well interacted person with his community. He was not just an academic but a leader of the mass movement. Today, it is time to understand why Ambedkar is important for us and revisit his ideals of freedom and democracy.

Many of our friends only remember Ambedkar of 1930s when he was fighting on caste system and articulating his views with Gandhi on caste and shastras. If the Shastras are not according to modern values we must change those texts, said Ambedkar which were virtually Jolted Gandhi and his faith. He could never imagine that somebody could challenge him to this level. That was power of Ambedkar’s love. He agitated for temple entry in famous Kalaram temple of Pune. He was the first one to take up the water issue in Mahad which was one of the biggest mass protests of Dalits.

The biggest change in Ambedkar’s thinking came when he declared that ‘ though I am a born Hindu which was not in my hand but I would not die as a Hindu’. He started studying Buddhism and had many more thoughts in his mind. He did not want to focus on Hindus and their caste system. He had mobilsed community against the caste system and brahmanical domination. He decided that this vast energy has to be channeled for positive purposes.

And that positive idea was the cultural changes that his work started bringing in the communities and areas he visited. In maharastra, women’s were inherent part of his movement. When I spoke to Baby Tai kamble about her involvement, her eyes sparkles about the involvement of women and how culturally they changed and became Buddhists. The Jatavs of Agara were also the ones who were quick to embrace his ideals. Cultural changes are more important before anything and Ambedkar had realized that and that is why his embracing Buddhism was not just a religious effort but providing the masses an alternative philosophy which would bring revolution in their life. The change has worked as today the Buddhists in Maharastra have proved themselves no less than any one in academics, cultures and achievements. They do not need government jobs as they are excelling in every field, in science, music, private sector, entrepreneurships and art.

My friend P.L.Mimroth had an interesting episode to narrate but I do not have any thing to verify this but because it is related to Ambedkar was the person who could have done it. When he was labour minister in Viceroy’s council, the department for PWD and New Delhi’s big builder started courting his son for this. They would call him for party. One day, Yashwant went to Baba Saheb and told him about his this particular builder but Baba Saheb realized that his son was not in the right direction and packed him to Mumbai.

Why it is important to take a lesson from Dr Ambedkar. All his life Ambedkar was very clear about his priorities and his action. He was a man of character. Making money as a lawyer or as a minister could have been easier for him but for him it was important that things should not be clean but also should also be seen as clean. And he never confined himself to the cause with in the community. Widely read as he was, Ambedkar understood the threat of Fascism on India and that is why during his stint as labor minister he not only supported M.N.Roy for his anti war efforts but also brought worked on many legislations for the benefits of the labor in the country.

Today, we jump up to fight if any one among our leaders is found corrupted. We start questioning the motives. We can not defend the indefensible. When he decided to embrace Buddhism, Ambedkar was in a different mode. He came out of the clutches of caste system and chose a different way. Now, once you are in that mode, you chose a new path, a path that leads to liberation. That is why, I firmly believe, Ambedkarism does not come to you automatically. You have to earn it. Ambedkarite perspective of the world is supporting all the social movements for change, for rights of individual, for questioning every religious text and defending the ideals of freedom and justice. You do not inherit Ambedkarism by just being born some where. Despite his ill health, enormous amount of work, the man work tirelessly and started many educational institutions including colleges and libraries. He not only spend time with people fighting their cases free of cost and providing them new ideas but also travelled large part of country to organize them. Ambedkar was in touch with many stalwarts of his time to provide a new alternative to the country. He sponsored a number of students for higher and professional education abroad. And we must understand he had limited capacity financially.

In Delhi people would come to his house in odd hours for consultation and with their grievances. And none went without hearing him. Some would come him to just see how he work. Such was his passion for work that he drafted Hindu Code Bill despite all his ailing health and was ready to draft a Uniform Civil Code with in 24 hours if all the members were ready. We all know how all kind of seculars joined hands in condemning him terming him as Modern Manu in the Parliament. Nehru could not fulfill his promise to get the bill passed and Ambedkar had to resign from cabinet.

We remember Ambedkar for his spirit, for his challenge to the system and for many because he gave us a new constitution. But definitely, he was much bigger than simply the drafter of our constitution. There are many things which he wanted to be part of the constitution but it could not happen. He wanted Land to be Nationalised and redistributed but that could not become part of our constitution. There were lots of constraints on him but he did succeed on many things. At the fag end of his life he demanded for proportionate electorate system to be implemented for the benefits of marginalized communities as they would be able to have their leaders of their choise and not coopted and corrupted leaders.

It is important to see the life cycle of Baba Saheb. Buddhism provided him a new path. And that path was forward looking with new ideals of democracy, freedom and liberty.
One of his endearing thoughts were of Karuna i.e. passion. Knowledge without passion is nothing but arrogance. Knowledge has to be useful to people and not just to your academics. A positive path is to look forward, giving new ideas and new support to the community. Government do not change system, it is people who change it. To fulfill the ideals of Ambedkar, we need to strengthen our links to community and work for it. And more importantly please support those who work in the community. Do not discount those who may not write on the internet but working silently on the ground. The best tribute would be to bring together all the forces of social justice together with the ideals of Dr Ambedkar. The ideals of Ambedkar are valid for all those who fight for human rights and social justice world over.

21st century could be the of the ideals of Dr Ambedkar only when we build up an Ambedkar Samaj where you leave your caste tag behinds and look positively forward with modern solutions to primitive value system. When the forces of revivalism are gaining ground and sympathy through media and political class, when the non state actors such as Khap Panchayats, and religious thugs refuses to accept the domain of our constitution, it is a big challenge to us. And we can not fight against them with just constitutional provisions. We have to shame them with our ideals, with our actions and with our arguments. When each of these religious fanatics want their own Manu Smritis to dominate us and guide our destiny then we have to expose them with involvement of masses as how dangerous these ideals of religious fanatics are? When the issues of gods become more important than human lives and human miseries, we need more like minded people and spread this ideals to more people as how religion and its dominant classes have killed people’s spirit, their ideals and will to work independently. If we confine Ambedkarism to particular set of people and stop spreading it, it will become redundant and ghettoized. Ambedkarism is an idea for all democratic struggle who are fighting for social justice and support equality, liberty and fraternity. Let the tribes of Ambedkarites grow and work for social change and human rights. Let it reach on every nook and corner of the country to develop it as ‘Prabuddha Bharat’, as Baba Saheb had visualized so that people do not pick up guns to counter any hegemony but arguments to demolish historical myths of the ruling elite. It is the right moment in our history and we have to accept the challenge and use Ambedkar’s thought to develop counter culture of democracy, freedom and humanism.

Tribute Jyoti Basu

Remembering Jyoti Basu

Immortalized in death

By Vidya Bhushan Rawat

Jyoti Basu is no more. After a fortnight of struggle with life he finally succumbed. It is inevitable and none can stop it whether one is a believer or non believer. What is more important is the work that person does and the legacy he leave behind. At the end, it is important what you do. Jyoti Basu lived upto his convictions, a truly Marxist, an atheist and a firm believer in science. He donated his eyes and his body will be used by medical science student for research purposes. What a contrast when you see the cremation of political class and I do not want to say just upper castes but of every religion. Jyoti Basu has debunked all those who feel that India can not be a country of non believers. Even when millions of believers are coming to Kumbha fair and destroying the Ganges, the conviction of Jyoti Basu need to be applauded.

That is why this obituary is being written from a different angle. I have been a critique of left front government in West Bengal and Kerala. Not because it did not work but because I felt it was always a bhadralok representative government and communism was never a matter as what matter more was Bengali Bhadralok identity. The Bengali bhadralok come in street in large number to say Lal Salaam to Jyoti Babu in his last journey, one need to understand that not all of them would like to emulate what Jyoti babu did in his death. Yes, the dark reality is that despite 30 years of left front rule, West Bengal remains one of the most rigid states in India where superstition is perhaps more than any other state and caste consciousness is equally high if not visible in the form of physical violence. No doubt, it is a state where any creative person would love to visit, where we can discuss on Mao to Marx, where the people are conscious of their rights and can take up to the street, but at the same point of time, it is a state where class consciousness is very high. Respect for Jyoti Babu does not come from his being communist but because he belong to their class, a bhadralok class. One can see the tributes in our daily newspapers. Right from capitalist Times of India to Marxist’s faithful The Hindu, the tribute is similar. The moaning is simple because he belongs to a particular class and community. It would not have been the same if he did not belong to an aristocratic family or upper caste bhadralok. We know the ‘capitalist’ newspaper condemning Marx and communists yet they all are moaning on the death of the ‘king of communists’. They condemn CPM in West Bengal but then why they loved Basu. It comes from the caste back ground. Yes, Jyoti Babu was truly tight lipped, British educated Bhadralok and a fair number of our journalists still worship that nature of Indian society. Ofcourse, one can find Jyoti Babu much better than his follower Buddha Dev, who went to woe all the capitalists and did not feel shy of talking to Advani about ‘problems in Madarasas’. After Buddha Dev’s ascendency, left became equal to ‘right’ in that state as Muslims became isolated and Dalits frustrated. The big MNCs got license to loot as left became the biggest supporter of them in a state where people were looking for basic amenities.

However, writing this can not take away the credit of the left front government rule in past thirty years. When I see things favorable for Mamata Benerjee in West Bengal, I start sympathizing left front government. One must appreciate them for being democratic and better than many other parties who needed internal democracy more than CPM. Of course, in democracy we need to change the government and any one party ruling one state is bound to develop fascist tendencies. We are talking about West Bengal in last thirty years, what about Narendra Modi’s Gujarat in 15 years, or Madhya Pradesh or YSR’s Andhra Pradesh where leaders became larger then life. Jyoti Babu actually is a role model in a sense that he was never loud mouthed. He was calm and never started any populist move as many chief ministers do. I wonder, how come a chief minister over such a long period of time, could not be corrupted when one see the change in the life styles of the political leaders who become minister for even one or two years. One just becoming a member of parliament for one or two year or an assembly member for one year, give you license to cheat the nation, it is remarkable that Jyoti Babu remain clean and those who are clean in heart and action can not be goody goody all the time.

Yes, the main challenge to us was the cleanliness of the left front leaders. I have written a lot about the upper caste politics of CPM and their misrule in West Bengal but as far as the individual integrity is concern, none can question them, at least the top leadership of the party. Whether it was Jyoti Babu or Indrajeet Gupta, in personal life they remain thoroughly simple enjoying simple living and high thinking, a slogan completely forgotten by our leaders whether they belong to social justice variety or swadeshi variety. Even today, their leaders are well read in their subject and can take on any one in a TV debate or on the issue of public concern.

The left front government has been in power for last 30 years and a lot go to Jyoti Basu for his able leadership. Though land reform was just in the beginning, the most important part of the change in West Bengal was through Panchayats. One of the most important thing and refreshingly new from any other state was to go to writer’s building and meet any minister without any fuss. In Delhi, UP and Bihar we are habitual of passing through many hurdles apart from meeting overzealous chamchas but Jyoti Babu did not create any of them in his 60 years old political life. It could have been easier for him. He never spoke unnecessarily.

I know during his regime the governance in the state became a party issue. The state administration became a party but that happened after 30 years but have not we seen it in UP, Gujarat and elsewhere how the bureaucrats just crawl to obey the powerful leaders and misguide them.

I have no love for left front’s rule as for me the pains of the Dalits in West Bengal were more important to understand. How can one ignore the inhuman demolition at Belilius Park where over 7000 families were still looking for a dignified rehabilitation? Nothing happened and I do not know whether Basu knew about it. The condition of the the Dalits in West Bengal remain a matter of grave concern apart from the condition of Muslims which CPM always flaunt. One may appreciate that west Bengal did not see the violence in the aftermath of the Babari demolition but if one go through the condition of Muslims in the state, the CPM’s government can not feel proud of its record.

Yet, what has gladdened my heart is Jyoti Babu’s last wish. As a radical humanist, what matter to us is to see the death of superstition and exploitative customs which have been imposed on our birth and deaths by the priestly class. The poor people have to follow this trend even at the cost of being bankrupt but the political class does not care as it has enough money. It wants to validate its religious identity at the end to get the electoral benefit. And if CPM or Jyoti Babu’s family has decided to fulfill his last wish, it is time to celebrate. We hope more and more people will do that in future. Unfortuantely, we have seen double standard in the personal life of our political class. Claiming to die for the masses, we have seen our political class like to be cremated among weeping people and amidst the chant of Vaidik Mantras by aristocratic Brahmins. The Kumbha fair is here and we in north India are habitual of the religious pontiffs preaching us greatness of Ganga Snan and performing religious rituals so that you get Moksha. The cremation of a political leader is again an opportunity for greedy priestly class to pontificate us on greatness of religious virtues for the purpose of spreading their virus. Politicians and their chamchas i.e. followers, use this opportunity to declare their undenying faith in God as well as on priestly class. Most of the politicians in India have succumbed to this as they might have been atheists in their personal lives but their family never let it be so. At the end despite their being atheists of non believers, they family opted for a religious cremation for various political purposes.

And that way, Jyoti Babu has become my role model. The more I think of this, I feel how politicians in India are full of double standards in public life. They earn for family, claim loud things and at the end want to be cremated by the religious pontiffs. Jyoti Babu has created an example. He has proved that a true Marxist remain true to Marxist philosophy of not succumbing to any religious rituals. India is a country where organ donation is difficult and has lot of religious connotations. It is believed that if you contribute your organs to any one, you will have to pass through worst conditions in next birth. The racist brahmanical philosophy has preached us that donating your eyes and body is dangerous. Jyoti Basu has saved environment. He has saved us from priestly pontification. He has put our faith in science. As a humanist, I feel overjoyed with this journey of Jyoti Basu. I might not have faith in the closed CPM minds in West Bengal but I respect his last wish. The wish to promote science and in another way call a grand rebuff to those who believe in theory of creativity and religious jargons. At least, we are saved from this pontification. Organ donation is an important issue and the more people understand about it, the better for our future. In the interest of humanity, we must follow our heart and donate our bodies for the betterment of human life. We will not only save precious wood particularly sandalwood, but also precious Ghee, and other important food items we offer to dead body. In the villages, people offer their income to Brahmins in hope the dead person would get it. If we have to make the brahmanical priestly class redundant, we must follow what Jyoti Babu did, by donating our bodies and shunning the rituals, we are so fond of, in the name of our culture. One hope, our political class will learn a lesson from this that life is meant to serve the people and it end here, there is no point in getting yourself purified by the priestly class which has cheated the people for centuries in the name death and birth. By donating his body for the purpose of science, Jyoti Babu has immortalized himself and has become much larger than his life as a Marxist. It is time our politicians who want to be remembered should worry more about human cause rather then ‘securing a place in heaven’. By donating their organs and bodies for the purpose of human kind they will not only attack the superstition nature of our society but also give lie to a few human beings and more to the research of science which will benefit human kind. At least, the people who suffered during their life time will not suffer in their death. It is time, we must understand the gravity of the situation and promote organ donation. Jyoti Basu has put an example, one hope our political class would be courageous enough to do so and immortalized iself.

Caste and Democracy in India

Caste and politics in India

*Vidya Bhushan Rawat




At the outset of my presentation, I would like to congratulate International Humanist and Ethical Union and fellow humanists for taking initiative to address the issue of untouchability from a non religious view point.

I always believed that the emancipation and liberation of humanity is not in the so-called liberation theologies but liberation of minds of human being. When we talk about India and see its diversity, we will find that most of the revolt movements in India spoke against the hegemony of a particular caste and the systematization of rituals and imposition of farcical values in the name of divinity.

India became a nation under the British regime. 400 years of Mughal rule and then British Raj, brought a lot of changes in India, whether administrative reforms or institutionalization of democratic process yet one thing that remained unchanged was the caste discrimination. Prior to British, the stream of Sufi saints rejected the brahmanical system and injustice meted to Dalits but their focus was more making people aware of themselves and tried to take shelter in a seemingly egalitarian religion by terming God does not discriminate, he is one and omnipresent and omnipotent.

But the real changes came when in the 19th century, when the approach of the leaders of deprived castes became not only of a of a revolt against the values and thoughts imposed by the High Caste Hindus led by the Brahmins but an assertion in the belief of modernity which resulted in the democratization process in Europe, United States as well as Eastern European Countries, which many of you might not like at the moment.

Democracy is essentially a practice of alliance building. And the first such grand alliance of farmers, marginalized communities and the deprived communities was forged by Jyoti Ba Phule, as he termed these communities as ‘Bahujan’ and felt that those ruling India were really minorities leaders of the high caste Hindus.

But Dr Ambedkar who got educated in United States, UK and Germany did not really feel the same way. His concerns were really about the constitutional provisions for the Dalits. He realized that Democracy was a broadly a majoritarian concept and cannot really be confined to electoral exercise and therefore a mere political alliance of communities which lead to political power can not be the only objective of a democratic exercise. Instead, he felt that our institutions should be strong enough to protect the constitutional provisions made for the most marginalized communities. He knew that the communities that he was leading did not understand much about discrimination and rights as it was thoroughly disempowered one. He knew that communities which remain in enslavement and hunger because of various rituals and ideologies and philosophies injected in their minds that they would not be able to understand what their rights are? Many of them still feel that what they have been doing was perfectly divine and no body has a right to stop that. The theory of karma, that what you are today because of your bad karmas in the previous birth hence to undo that one must stick to his/her duties. Ambedkar said that Karma theory did the maxmimum damage to the rights of the depressed classes most commonly known as Untouchables or Dalits.

We must not forget that Ambedkar approached the Dalits problem through a minority view point. He wanted to ensure constitutional rights so that the Dalits do not become victim of majoritarian assertion during the elections. That is why he fought for the separate electorate for them in 1932 and which was justifiably awarded by the British that time known as communal award. In all his life time, Ambedkar addressed the issue of the untouchables from the view point of a democratic polity and not just politics.

After India got independence and Ambedkar led the drafting of the Indian constitution, Dalits got 17.5% seats reserved in parliament and state assemblies. Actually Ambedkar never asked for this reservation as he feared that the leadership that would emerge after this would be serving more to the high caste Hindus who form the majority than the Dalits. And this resulted in defeat of Ambedkar in the very first election he contested from Mumbai, Maharastra as all the high caste Hindus ganged up against him and got him defeated.

Ambedkar could not live more but the Dalis became vote bank of the ruling party. Many leaders were elected and became ministers and governors and chief ministers of the state but the over all condition of the Dalits was a matter of great concern. However, there were a few symbolic exceptions which were utilized to mobilize the Dalit opinion for a particular political formation.

Let us first come to what Ambedkar said about Indian democracy in an interview to Voice of America on May 20th, 1956. He asks this question whether there is a democracy in India and he says: ‘Democracy is quite different from a Republic as well as from parliamentary Government. The roots of democracy lie not in the form of Government, Parliamentary or otherwise. A democracy is more than a form of government. It is primarily a mode of associated living. The roots of democracy are to be searched in the social relationship, in the terms of associated life between people who form a society.’


And to further his cause he points out: “The Indian society does not consist of individuals. It consists of innumerable collection of castes, which are exclusive in their life and have no common experience to share and have no bond of sympathy. The existence of caste system is a standing denial of the existence of those ideals of society and therefore of democracy. An Indian cannot eat or marry with an Indian simply because he or she does not belong to his or her caste. An Indian simply can not touch an Indian because he or she does belong to his or her caste.” Ambedkar questions the political system and how Congress party field its candidate and how they are selected carefully on the basis of their caste. Ambedkar says : “How does an Indian vote in an election? He votes for a candidate who belongs to his own caste and no other Further he considers caste system as a bane to democracy. ‘ Castes are not equal in their status. They are standing one above another. They are jealous of one another. It is an ascending scale of hatred and descending scale of contempt. The feature of caste system has most pernicious consequences. It destroys willing and helpful cooperation.”

Unfortunately, after Ambedkar death his legacy was claimed by certain leaders for their own purposes. Ambedkar ideals were kept in books and what was projected his themes and views which were suitable to various political leaders. What they failed to understand that Ambedkar grew up over a period of time and many of his views changed. If he had bitter experience on the issue of questioning the religious text with Gandhi and on the issue of empowerment of the Dalits, he joined the constitution making process to empower the community leaving his bitterness aside. Post 1940s he was more into positive action and send many Dalit scholars abroad at his own expenses.

Never in his life did Ambedkar resorted to identity of caste for political purposes. He formed Indian Labour Party. He formed Depressed classes League and he formed Republican Party of India, all showing his concerns and ideals of how he wished to fight the question of discrimination. To eradicate the caste identity of different Dalit communities or Scheduled Castes, as they are called constitutionally, Ambedkar redefined Buddhism in a radical humanist way and termed it as Navayana. I am not going to discuss the issue here.. The point I want to make it is that Ambedkar’s quest for a progressive Dalit identity beyond caste has not been properly followed up by those who claim his legacy purely on the basis of his caste.

For the parties claiming his legacy he was ‘their’ leader only. For the Hindu upper caste parties, he became a ‘Dalit leader’therefore relegating him to the confinement in urban slums and Dalitwadas of the villages. The irony was that a modern man like Ambedkar whose democratic spirit could have been the meeting ground for the forces of change, became victim of caste identities in India.

In the parliamentary democracy of First Past the Post System, which Ambedkar himself actually felt inadequate to protect the interest of the Dalits, the politics is fast turning into a game of identities where the minority identity have no meaning. It is fast merging with the broader majoritarian identity as the slogan grew up in the air ‘jisaki jitani sankhya bhari uski utni sajhedari.. the more numbers you have, the bigger the share in power structure. Nowhere, it has any insurance for the minorities. It claims to reserve seats for them according to their number but the fact is that the concept of this kind of politics has fragmented the Dalit politics further, with more and more leaders focusing on their primary caste identities to get into vote bank politics. Hence, those whose castes have more numbers get the leverage of power and those who do not have suffered in this process despite their efforts. We have seen many Dalit leaders who have focused on their issues more than any other political leaders and getting marginalized in the process because the sheer number of their castes. What is this? I call it depoliticisation of the Dalits and their issues which is very dangerous as those who really do not work and are expert manipulators can get elected in their names. More so because, the democracy is actually going in the hands of those forces which are anti democratic and have no faith in it. Dalits who got their legitimate rights through democratic means today feel betrayed by this. As we use symbol to tell the world that the Dalits have been empowered in India, it is time to look into the ugly realities of the process.

We can see the process of political changes in two most populous states of Uttar-Pradesh and Bihar. Both were the first one where the National parties got thoroughly marginalized and a large number of the Dalit-OBC ( the Other Backward communities, artisan-peasantry) dominated the political process since 1990. But this broader unity of Dalit-Bahujan could have changed the entire polity in India but because the individual leaders and their egos became bigger than their political parties which became one man/woman show and no internal democracy in these parties resulted in collapsing these forces. Added on this was the attempt by the intellectual and leaders of these forces equating every one who is a non Dalit-or OBC as Manuwadi-or Brahmanical while purely ignoring or conspicuously side tracking the issue of their political leaders hobnobbing with right wing Hindu Nationalist party BJP.

Anti Brahmanism and anti ritualism is the quintessential central theme of the Dalit-Bahujan theory but this does not apply to the High Caste Hindus only, it applies to the leadership and communities themselves. Unfortunately, whether it is politics or so-called social movements, except for a few, most of the Dalit-Bahujan politics became a rhetorical agitated one harping on the victimized politics while clearly failing to address the issue of inter community dialogue and clarity of ideological perspectives. Hence a broad movement which had the power to change power equations in India became an instrument to keep their flock together by abusing the High caste Hindus during the day and dine with them in the night and strategizing things with them, to monopolise the power structure with one particular community. As I said earlier democracy is essentially an alliance building exercise based on ideology but here alliance building was a criminal alliance of one particular community with other one ( both stronger ones and numerically powerful one) resulting in the marginalization of the other communities among the Dalits and backward castes who were numerically non existent. This happened in Bihar where a backward leader made alliance with Muslims. His Yadav and Muslim community made a lethal alliance and ruled the state for nearly 20 years but without any developmental work. Similar thing happened in UP where the chief minister Mayawati combined her caste strength i.e. Chamars with the Brahmins much to resentment of the other Dalit communities. There again the government forgot basic Dalit agenda of governance like land reform, education and health sector focus or any new scheme for the poor. The result was that, the Chamars themselves got fed up with the government where they were just fodder to give the Brahmins a power and fell out of the government. In Bihar also, the other marginalized and mostly Dalits revolted and allowed a new government in power.

The continuous assertion and democratization process in India will continue. Every community which has been left in the race want political representation and can not be satisfied with our romantification of a broad Dalit-Bahujan concept to give a few elite to capture power in their name and become dictator and use state tools as a fancy for their personal wills. People will question leaders and thrash them if they fail to deliver. India’s transition to democracy is still in process and the Dalits and other marginalized communities its biggest asset. The democratization process will bring new leaders from the marginalized communities. One phase where the middleman masquerading politicians came to power structure in the name of identity but mere identity does not work. People want to development, people want their voices... and they are not ready that some one in the name of their identity, grab power structure and use it for his/her personal gains which was widely perceived. The political leaders will have to democratize themselves and address the basic issues the community. India has one of the best constitutions but it is rarely implemented fully. Dalit-Bahujan power polity need to first stick to its basic preambles and lead from the personal example. How can they ignore the rich legacy of Ambedkar-Phule and Periyar, each one of them person of high integrity and deeply committed to the cause of oppressed communities? It is time that this legacy is carried forward by the current leadership with basic principals by becoming modern, democratize yourself and with a humanist perspective. Dalit Bahujan politics can not be exclusive in nature but more broad, open minded and inclusive and should provide an idea which did not exist in the brahmanical mind set, the idea of freedom and humanism its basic tenants, as it lead those communities which were victim of the caste system in India. The Dalit movement can not be a movement of caste identities but beyond that providing alternative political theory in India. May be the beginning could be made with giving representation to different marginalized communities with in the power structure of the political parties that they care for the numerically lesser communities who do not matter much in terms of vote or who can not become vote bank. Our current parliamentary system does not do justice to these most marginalized communities and hence Dalit empowerment will only be of a particular individual with political heritage of the family. It results in hegemony of one family or individual by destructing the monopoly of others. Idea of governance remain a far cry in this entire scheme as the entire focus revolve around identity turning the entire community as apolitical and making leaders much bigger then the political parties and movement. Such a situation is dangerous for the communities. But fortunately, the current Lok Sabha election while springing some surprises also sends a stern message to these political parties that they can not take people for granted in the name of identity... now time is to deliver to them. You can not have an identity without good education, economic conditions and social change for equality. Unfortunately, those who harp more on caste have lost their idea of how to annihilate it. Caste can not be simply strengthened to market a few individual and their megalomaniac vision about themselves. The issue of caste and Dalits is actually need to be addressed as the civil rights movement in the United States. It is important that it is not become a few seats in parliament and empowerment of the elite leaders in the name of communities. It has to be broad movement for human rights and human dignity. It has to be a movement against the religious rituals and holy texts which kept them subjugated for centuries and enslaved their minds. Humanists have that capacity to deliver it as they believe in that today’s dalits have the capacity and democracy has provided them alternative. Only a modern democratic theory with republican ideas as envisioned by Dr Ambedkar can be their true emancipator otherwise, caste based identities are threatening basic Dalit unity in the country and it is fast becoming a self defeating exercise.

Vidya Bhushan Rawat is a secular humanist based in Delhi and working with Social Development Foundation, Delhi. His writings can be accessed at www.manukhsi.blogspot.com and he can be contacted at vbrawat@gmail.com