Relevance of Mahad’s historical struggle
Manusmriti need to be burnt not in its physicality alone but also from our hearts and minds
By Vidya Bhushan Rawat
Two sisters from scavenging community were burnt to death by an upper caste mob in Moradabad district of Uttar-Pradesh for an alleged murder committed by their brother who is still at large. The family requested the police to protect them yet nothing happened. Contrary to what the girl’s distraught mother is saying, the Uttar-Pradesh police already suggested that the girls committed suicide because of the regular humiliation by their neighbors regarding their brothers.
Uttar-Pradesh, people say, is the laboratory of the Dalit-Bahujan politics. Unfortunately, Brahmanism still remains as powerful in the state as ever though its functionality and strategies have changed drastically. The Dalit- Bahujan concept has taken a beating here and to the best now the new agendas of different caste identities have emerged in the state. Tragically, this assertion movement has some where drifted from what Baba Saheb Ambedkar charted for all the oppressed of the country, a new vision under Buddha’s liberating path. Uttar-Pradesh has seen empowered Dalit Bahujan politics but unlike Maharastra the efforts for a counter culture here have not worked well. In the absence of a counter culture, the Dalit Bahujan leaderships of different communities are targeting each other and in the end reinforcing brahmanical beliefs of supremacy and purity. As long as caste remains, Brahmanism will work to the benefits of the powerful and maintain hegemonies of a few.
It is therefore necessary to revisit the historic path of Baba Saheb Ambedkar in Mahad where he fought the rights of the people denied human dignity and access the natural resources. Water is a natural resource and none has right to control it and Ambedkar’s fight for water right for the Dalits is an example of how people’s movement can bring social change as he was not just breaking the brahmanical hegemony over water but also pointing that without equality of women and their effective participation no movement would succeed. He, along with thousands of his followers, predominantly women, burnt Manusmriti, the law book of the Hindus. It was not just symbolic but a strong rejection of racist Hindu social order which denied human being equality, liberty and fraternity. It was just not a political issue as he made an important statement in burning Manusmriti, which means that the rejection of old order based on racial prejudices of cultural supremacy must essentially be part of any movement meant for social justice. Hence, December 25th must be celebrated as a human rights day of the oppressed all over the world. We can not leave this symbolic day to the pages of history only but take it further to demolish Machiavellian politics of highest kind where people are marginalized through divine sanctions and subjugated further in the name of Gods and the books supposedly written by them. No book was bigger than human liberty and freedom and therefore they need to be questioned and formulated according to modern concept of rights for all.
For every student of social sciences and human rights in India must read and understand this historical event of December 25th, 1927, as this will give them ideas to learn and understand what Ambedkar stood for and what he revolted. That was the time, when Baba Saheb challenged the religious superiority of Manu Smriti and termed it a law book of injustice and burnt it with his supporters, it was a big event for millions of people were fooled to believe in a book which can not be changed yet which was responsible for their miseries and sorrows. A person like Ambedkar would not believe in tokenism as he countered each of these laws with his thought provoking critical analysis, yet it was important for him to do something symbolic which sends a positive message among the community.
This is Ambedkar’s century and his forthright views are now a challenge for all hegemonies. Today, the movement for social justice can not imagine anything leaving Ambedkar from the centrality of it. Yet, very unfortunately, many new things are coming up projecting Ambedkar as a person from a particular community, who married to a non Dalit woman and most shockingly, they alleged, he embrace Buddhism under pressure of Hindus. This is the outcome of the growing caste identities being used for individual leaders and their fancies to achieve ‘political power’. There is nothing wrong in attaining political power but how will it sustain without a common cause and common rejection of the Varnashram dharma. How can we challenge Brahmanism without a counter-culture, which is more humane, progressive and ideologically stronger and better than an order based on prejudices and stereotypes? As Dalit Bahujan movement further split into the caste and sub-castes identities hitting at each other, the power of Ambedkar’s cultural vision become more than relevant for all of us. Ambedkar as a challenger of hegemony, a free thinker and an iconoclast would answer to all the irrelevant manipulations of his formulations and ideological constructs being constructed by these prophets of religions who find it unacceptable as why he embraced Buddhism. Problem with these thinking is that all of them denigrate Ambedkar’s great moral courage and hence it is essential to understand Ambedkar in true spirit of his philosophy of life and mission.
Yes, those who feel Ambedkar embraced Buddhism out of fear and pressure from Sangh Parivar do not really appreciate his commitment and strength. A man who could walk out of an audience with Pope John Paul just because the latter could not respond to his questions properly must have been having the courage of conviction. One must understand that Baba Saheb Ambedkar clearly mentioned that Hindu Fundamentalists are the biggest threat and Hindu Rashtra would be a colossal tragedy for India. He talked against political Islam and its threat. It would be very difficult to find a man of Ambedkar’s vision and courage who single handedly brought change in the lives of millions of people in India.
Ambedkar is the name of Freedom, liberty and enlightened individual. And he is aspiration and hope of millions of people denied rights and yet by dint of their hard work, they have challenge the brahmanical superstructure. He was a man of great pragmatism yet never ever compromised on his principles. His pragmatism never ever reflected in politics of opportunism which is very much part of today’s politics and politicians. His thrust on individual is a landmark from any standard as even European society and Americans had not discovered that individualism that Ambedkar aspired for. For him individual was supreme and those who denigrate individual can not really build a healthy society? Our societies deny individual the basic liberty and that is why it can not be called a society.
Today, on December 25th, we must have the courage to be as courageous as Baba Saheb Ambedkar was to his thoughts and action, his creations, his thoughts, of his convictions and commitments. His fight for the fundamental right of access to natural resources, added by rejection of the racist brahmanical order should be part of our college curriculum. Those who believe in egalitarian society must understand the meaning of Ambedkar and his fight for social justice. Today, in the world where our governments and societies are hurting the individual liberty the most, when our political parties are compromising with religious fundamentalists, when our Khap panchayats are deciding what we should do and what should we think, Ambedkar’s ideas remains a beacon of hope. Ambedkar is the hope for all the oppressed. The women in India need to understand that Dr Ambedkar’s struggle for them was supreme. This day when we celebrate the Christmas as big day, it is a big day for millions of people all over the world for their dignity and human right. His ideas need to globalised and propagated internationally so that more and more people understand the enormity of his struggle and modernity of his ideas which changed our world. Let president Obama read Dr Ambedkar and his writings and he will understand the cruelty of Indian village system as well as how a giant like Ambedkar could bring hopes in the lives of million without using any violent methods but simply advocating through a counter culture to oppression and subjugation. The politics of identity is great but as Ambedkar himself said about his own ‘ I was born as Hindu which was not in my hand but I will not die as a Hindu’. It clearly indicates that he was out to create new identity and harp on it. The sacrifice of Baba Saheb Ambedkar was for all of us to live in an enlightened society. We can not have our vision by reasserting our identities created under the brahmanical construct. A new dawn need to be created which means a cultural change is prerequisite for making final assault on Brahmanism and Ambedkar has shown us the path. It is time we chose that identity charted by him and get out of this big brahmanical game of hurting each other. We all may have minor contradiction but we need to understand the bigger contradiction of our life is with the order created by Manu. Baba Saheb chose to hit at that bigger contradiction in Mahad and it is time we need to follow that again and again. We may burn Manu Smriti in public but let us throw it away in the rubbish bin of history and pledge to work for a humanist society as envisaged by Baba Saheb Ambedkar. When we shed our internal prejudices then the mother of the scavenging community girls who were brutally burnt Moradabad would not feel isolated with in the Dalit Bahujan politics and we will not raise an issue when there is a good political crop to harvest. That time every individual is important for us as Baba Saheb time and again maintained. It is tragic that like the Hindus we also prejudge things and confine ourselves in the realm of identity politics. Baba Saheb’s message was meant for all of us and we must come in solidarity of all who need us. It is here that Balmikis of Moradabad need our support. Even if, as some people assume that the brothers of these girls who were burnt, were criminals, that does not mean that the girls and their family should have paid the price for the crime they never committed. Blaming people on their birth identity and on the crime of some one else is brahanical and need to be challenged at all level including our personal and ideological discourse. The biggest defeat of Manu Smriti would be the social-cultural unity of victims of that order created by it, but in the absence of a concrete programme of action and because of conspicuous silence on matter such as these killings create further rifts in the people and make them fall in the hands of those who are actually the biggest offenders of our dignity and human rights. Unity will never happen with big jargons and rhetoric but is only possible with expression of solidarity and participating and being part of every struggle for human dignity and human rights. And message from Mahad is that intellectuals who write must ensure at least some time of their life to be participants of a social movement and struggle for change. How did Baba Saheb Ambedkar found time to write so many things and yet be part of all the major struggles. His writings and work had the conviction strongly inbuilt that unless we become part of social movements for change and unless we shed these brahmanical prejudices and values in our personality, we will always be carrying Manu in our heart and mind. Ambedkar did not have the patience to hear Pope that it will take so many centuries for elimination of caste system and walked out of him. Ambedkar has done his work, it is time for us to pledge that we will not sit ideally unless this notorious system is demolished and the best way to do so would be by taking further his path and creating an enlightened and equitable society, if not among all, at least among our own selves.
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Reality Check of Bihar's verdict
Understanding Bihar’s verdict
By Vidya Bhushan Rawat
Bihar polls have brought ‘smile’ to many faces on our TV channels. As Nitish Kumar romp through a landslide victory along with his ally in the NDA, the media started writing obituary of Lalu Yadav as well as Ram Vilas Paswan. I still remember a statement from George Fernandez not to make mistake of writing obituary of political leaders unless they are buried or cremated as they can always bounce back. There is no scientific methodology for people to vote. A middle class hero Man Mohan Singh could be defeated easily from a constituency like South Delhi which is considered to be ‘educated and well off’. Hence it is too much if we think that caste has been eliminated from the minds of people in Bihar in particular and India in general since our TV ‘experts’ wants us to believe so without changing their own caste mind.
Yes, Bihar’s results need more analysis and in-depth reading. Did Lalu and Ram Vilas’s arrogance hurt the voters? Did they take their voters for granted? Is corruption not an issue with the Dalit Bahujan communities? I think one will have to analyse the whole issue. Has Mandal failed or the forces of social justice let down the Mandal revolution in India with their continuously opportunistic and unholy alliances with the caste forces?
Coincidently, when Bihar’s Nitish Kumar government assumes office for second term, a new scenario has emerged for the forces of Social Justice which need to be understood. And it is post modern Mandalism now with most backward communities challenging the status quo and asking for the accountability. That you can not rule over them in the name of Dalit and backward without providing a space for them in the governance structure. If the political class in the name of social justice does not come out of the family business, they will be wiped out as happened in Bihar. The forces of social justice can not have Gandhi family as their idol.
However, these polls also show the inadequacy of political system where a party just getting 39% of the popular votes has got nearly 89% seats in the assembly. Most of the media termed that Bihar has now got rid of caste identities but the fact is that the Maha Dalits and most backward castes are seeking their space and Nitish Kumar should not feel that he can put the upper caste agenda on Bihar to term it as a ‘casteless’ state. How many of them are ready to leave their caste interest aside and speak for a casteless society. Will the forces of Hindutva work for a casteless society? If yes then the annihilation of caste is annihilation of Brahmanism in India which is not really the agenda of Nitish Kumar and his allies.
Nitish Kumar failed in implementing the Bandhopadhyay Commission report on land redistribution. Just a few days before the election results we saw violence against Dalits by powerful Bhumihar community which seemed to enjoy Nitish Kumar’s rule in Bihar. The violence by Bhumihars on the Dalits was because of the land issue in Pathua village of district Lakhisarai in which about 900 bighas of land declared surplus under Ceiling Act was being encroached by the goons of a particular Bhumihar leader as they wanted to uproot the Dalits and most backward communities living on the said land. Land will remain one of the most contentious issue and if Nitish Kumar in the din of the euphoria created by corporate media ignore this issue then he will meet the same fate as Lalu and Ram Vilas Paswan have met with. That the most backward communities and Dalits have signaled to Bihar politicians which largely revolved around powerful OBCs, Bhumihars, Brahmin, Kayasthas and Rajputs that they too are an important segment of state. The Pasmanda Muslims also joined hand with these forces and hence the expectations are high. However, an attempt is being made to convert the entire verdict into so-called developmental frame work. While it is true that people want accountability from their leaders and they want participation in power. They will not be satisfied with the rhetoric of development. We all know Bihar remain peaceful during the past few years as no displacement took place because of so-called industrialization as it did not happen. The first phase of Nitish’s rule was basically roads, electricity and water but big companies are eyeing Bihar now. Nitish Kumar should be careful enough to understand that he can not take away people’s land in the name of development. An image is being created for Nitish Kumar as if he is the replica of Naveen Patnayak of Orissa. Nitish should be careful enough in dealing people’s issues s Bihar is definitely not Orissa and any such displacement of people will come to haunt him and decimate him for ever. We know the media is very happy with ‘merit’ winning in Bihar because they want to push their own agenda and get land for a few corporate houses.
As Nitish takes over the reins of tomorrow, he would probably remember his colleague and senior leader V P Singh’s effort for probity in public life. It is important to understand the importance of VP Singh today and how Nitish could further that agenda of Mandal. The result in Bihar are not end of Mandal politics but as VP Singh often remarked that the Mandal forces have to capture the opposition space also. It is important for the forces of social justice to be free from corruption and family business. Nitish Kumar could do it. Bihar’s voter was very clear this time when they defeated all the major Bahubalis and those who thought politics as family domain. In the realm of social justice politics there are very few who did not leave behind any family legacy for the others.
We know it very well that the corporate run media is hell bent to undo the historical change of the post Mandal era. They do it with all their might. Using every thing under their belt to scuttle all the voices of social justice. It is not for the unknown reasons that V.P.Singh still remains one of the most hated politicians of the country. Lalu and Ramvilas must understand. Nitish and Sharad may understand it even when they are being glorified by the same upper caste media which villainised them in 1990. Is not it a fact that Sharad Yadav and
Ram Vilas Paswan were two most hated face along with V P Singh during those tumultuous years that India faced just because a government dutifully promised to implement the Mandal Commission Report.
It is time to revisit that. It is time for introspection. The political forces of social justice actually betrayed themselves. The issue of corruption may not look important to all those ideologues who are in a comparative mode but it affects the common people. It does not matter whether the corruption involve Karunanidhi, Lalu Yadav or Rajiv Gandhi. It simply means loss of generation for poor in India. It means denial of their right and basic facilities. And people today are judging their political leaders. They understand that the political class is corrupted by the power politics and that is why Lalu and Rabri might not have thought that she will face such humiliating defeat in her own den where Yadavas called the shot. The verdict is clear that you can not take your own community for granted. May be they could have learnt a few lesson from Kanshi Ram who had no family to place over the people. He created a Mayawati and a committed cadre in BAMSEF and among various Dalit communities and people accepted her wholeheartedly. Ofcourse, Mayawati too, should take a few lessons from Bihar verdict even when Bihar and Uttar-Pradesh are quite contrast yet none should take their own community as for granted. Mayawati will have to work for Sarvjan but not at the cost of the Dalits in Uttar-Pradesh otherwise the most loyal voter will ditch her. There is a limit to the people’s patience. That is one big lesson we get from the defeat of close relatives of both Ram Vilas Paswan as well as Lalu Yadav. One can not term mere representation of one’s family as the ‘voice’ of people. You will have to go beyond slogans and create a movement. People are not going to believe in your hollow secularism unless you launch an anti caste struggle. Unfortunately, anti caste movement was never on the agenda of those who claimed the legacy of social justice movement in India. Yes, we need people with clean image and clear ideology to fight against the brahmanical forces who are basking over the glory of Bihar’s rejection to ‘caste’. One hope Nitish Kumar understand that caste is the real cause of poverty in Bihar as well as in India. Mushahars, Dushadhs, Nishads, Chamars, Doms are not poor because of their class only but because they were born in these particular communities. So, he will have to reach them. He formed Maha Dalit to break the greater Dalit alliance and unfortunately none noticed it but the fact is these are the time of alliance building. Nitish’s alliance is still artificial as there can not be any alliance between the exploiters and exploited. Nitish Kumar’s upper caste vote bank will still not want that land reform be implemented and land be redistributed to poor. That Lalu too does not want.
It is important to break the myth of Bihar’s revolution. Bihar actually has little to offer to Dalits as the politics here is very much a domain game of powerful upper castes verses neo powerful OBCs. Dalits and Muslims are just an annexure to their broader agenda. It’s similar to what is happening in Tamilnadu in the name of social justice. It is actually the biggest failure of Ramvilas Paswan and Lalu Yadav as they failed to reach the poorest Dalit and economically backward communities who were feeling marginalized and left out. Nitish Kumar carefully cultivated them along with Muslims and succeeded. Those pretending to lead anti caste forces must unite all such forces victim of caste forces in Bihar in complete harmony and not mere followers of a few individuals and their families.
By Vidya Bhushan Rawat
Bihar polls have brought ‘smile’ to many faces on our TV channels. As Nitish Kumar romp through a landslide victory along with his ally in the NDA, the media started writing obituary of Lalu Yadav as well as Ram Vilas Paswan. I still remember a statement from George Fernandez not to make mistake of writing obituary of political leaders unless they are buried or cremated as they can always bounce back. There is no scientific methodology for people to vote. A middle class hero Man Mohan Singh could be defeated easily from a constituency like South Delhi which is considered to be ‘educated and well off’. Hence it is too much if we think that caste has been eliminated from the minds of people in Bihar in particular and India in general since our TV ‘experts’ wants us to believe so without changing their own caste mind.
Yes, Bihar’s results need more analysis and in-depth reading. Did Lalu and Ram Vilas’s arrogance hurt the voters? Did they take their voters for granted? Is corruption not an issue with the Dalit Bahujan communities? I think one will have to analyse the whole issue. Has Mandal failed or the forces of social justice let down the Mandal revolution in India with their continuously opportunistic and unholy alliances with the caste forces?
Coincidently, when Bihar’s Nitish Kumar government assumes office for second term, a new scenario has emerged for the forces of Social Justice which need to be understood. And it is post modern Mandalism now with most backward communities challenging the status quo and asking for the accountability. That you can not rule over them in the name of Dalit and backward without providing a space for them in the governance structure. If the political class in the name of social justice does not come out of the family business, they will be wiped out as happened in Bihar. The forces of social justice can not have Gandhi family as their idol.
However, these polls also show the inadequacy of political system where a party just getting 39% of the popular votes has got nearly 89% seats in the assembly. Most of the media termed that Bihar has now got rid of caste identities but the fact is that the Maha Dalits and most backward castes are seeking their space and Nitish Kumar should not feel that he can put the upper caste agenda on Bihar to term it as a ‘casteless’ state. How many of them are ready to leave their caste interest aside and speak for a casteless society. Will the forces of Hindutva work for a casteless society? If yes then the annihilation of caste is annihilation of Brahmanism in India which is not really the agenda of Nitish Kumar and his allies.
Nitish Kumar failed in implementing the Bandhopadhyay Commission report on land redistribution. Just a few days before the election results we saw violence against Dalits by powerful Bhumihar community which seemed to enjoy Nitish Kumar’s rule in Bihar. The violence by Bhumihars on the Dalits was because of the land issue in Pathua village of district Lakhisarai in which about 900 bighas of land declared surplus under Ceiling Act was being encroached by the goons of a particular Bhumihar leader as they wanted to uproot the Dalits and most backward communities living on the said land. Land will remain one of the most contentious issue and if Nitish Kumar in the din of the euphoria created by corporate media ignore this issue then he will meet the same fate as Lalu and Ram Vilas Paswan have met with. That the most backward communities and Dalits have signaled to Bihar politicians which largely revolved around powerful OBCs, Bhumihars, Brahmin, Kayasthas and Rajputs that they too are an important segment of state. The Pasmanda Muslims also joined hand with these forces and hence the expectations are high. However, an attempt is being made to convert the entire verdict into so-called developmental frame work. While it is true that people want accountability from their leaders and they want participation in power. They will not be satisfied with the rhetoric of development. We all know Bihar remain peaceful during the past few years as no displacement took place because of so-called industrialization as it did not happen. The first phase of Nitish’s rule was basically roads, electricity and water but big companies are eyeing Bihar now. Nitish Kumar should be careful enough to understand that he can not take away people’s land in the name of development. An image is being created for Nitish Kumar as if he is the replica of Naveen Patnayak of Orissa. Nitish should be careful enough in dealing people’s issues s Bihar is definitely not Orissa and any such displacement of people will come to haunt him and decimate him for ever. We know the media is very happy with ‘merit’ winning in Bihar because they want to push their own agenda and get land for a few corporate houses.
As Nitish takes over the reins of tomorrow, he would probably remember his colleague and senior leader V P Singh’s effort for probity in public life. It is important to understand the importance of VP Singh today and how Nitish could further that agenda of Mandal. The result in Bihar are not end of Mandal politics but as VP Singh often remarked that the Mandal forces have to capture the opposition space also. It is important for the forces of social justice to be free from corruption and family business. Nitish Kumar could do it. Bihar’s voter was very clear this time when they defeated all the major Bahubalis and those who thought politics as family domain. In the realm of social justice politics there are very few who did not leave behind any family legacy for the others.
We know it very well that the corporate run media is hell bent to undo the historical change of the post Mandal era. They do it with all their might. Using every thing under their belt to scuttle all the voices of social justice. It is not for the unknown reasons that V.P.Singh still remains one of the most hated politicians of the country. Lalu and Ramvilas must understand. Nitish and Sharad may understand it even when they are being glorified by the same upper caste media which villainised them in 1990. Is not it a fact that Sharad Yadav and
Ram Vilas Paswan were two most hated face along with V P Singh during those tumultuous years that India faced just because a government dutifully promised to implement the Mandal Commission Report.
It is time to revisit that. It is time for introspection. The political forces of social justice actually betrayed themselves. The issue of corruption may not look important to all those ideologues who are in a comparative mode but it affects the common people. It does not matter whether the corruption involve Karunanidhi, Lalu Yadav or Rajiv Gandhi. It simply means loss of generation for poor in India. It means denial of their right and basic facilities. And people today are judging their political leaders. They understand that the political class is corrupted by the power politics and that is why Lalu and Rabri might not have thought that she will face such humiliating defeat in her own den where Yadavas called the shot. The verdict is clear that you can not take your own community for granted. May be they could have learnt a few lesson from Kanshi Ram who had no family to place over the people. He created a Mayawati and a committed cadre in BAMSEF and among various Dalit communities and people accepted her wholeheartedly. Ofcourse, Mayawati too, should take a few lessons from Bihar verdict even when Bihar and Uttar-Pradesh are quite contrast yet none should take their own community as for granted. Mayawati will have to work for Sarvjan but not at the cost of the Dalits in Uttar-Pradesh otherwise the most loyal voter will ditch her. There is a limit to the people’s patience. That is one big lesson we get from the defeat of close relatives of both Ram Vilas Paswan as well as Lalu Yadav. One can not term mere representation of one’s family as the ‘voice’ of people. You will have to go beyond slogans and create a movement. People are not going to believe in your hollow secularism unless you launch an anti caste struggle. Unfortunately, anti caste movement was never on the agenda of those who claimed the legacy of social justice movement in India. Yes, we need people with clean image and clear ideology to fight against the brahmanical forces who are basking over the glory of Bihar’s rejection to ‘caste’. One hope Nitish Kumar understand that caste is the real cause of poverty in Bihar as well as in India. Mushahars, Dushadhs, Nishads, Chamars, Doms are not poor because of their class only but because they were born in these particular communities. So, he will have to reach them. He formed Maha Dalit to break the greater Dalit alliance and unfortunately none noticed it but the fact is these are the time of alliance building. Nitish’s alliance is still artificial as there can not be any alliance between the exploiters and exploited. Nitish Kumar’s upper caste vote bank will still not want that land reform be implemented and land be redistributed to poor. That Lalu too does not want.
It is important to break the myth of Bihar’s revolution. Bihar actually has little to offer to Dalits as the politics here is very much a domain game of powerful upper castes verses neo powerful OBCs. Dalits and Muslims are just an annexure to their broader agenda. It’s similar to what is happening in Tamilnadu in the name of social justice. It is actually the biggest failure of Ramvilas Paswan and Lalu Yadav as they failed to reach the poorest Dalit and economically backward communities who were feeling marginalized and left out. Nitish Kumar carefully cultivated them along with Muslims and succeeded. Those pretending to lead anti caste forces must unite all such forces victim of caste forces in Bihar in complete harmony and not mere followers of a few individuals and their families.
Monday, November 22, 2010
The Legacy of Bhagwan Das
Tribute to Bhagwan Das
A true inheritor of Ambedkar’s mission
By Vidya Bhushan Rawat
The passing away of veteran Ambedkarite Bhagwan Das is closure of a great chapter in the contemporary Dalit movement. A close associate of Baba Saheb Ambedkar, Bhagwan Das in every sense of life lived a life of true follower of Baba Saheb. I had opportunities to meet on several occasions and would vouch that I remained highly impressed and in awe with his simplicity and the library of knowledge that he had on Ambedkar’s work and writing. He was not a rebel rouser but proved through his meticulous writings that he was much more concerned and his views were immensely important to the growth of Ambedkarite movement. Those narratives and documented work on the life and mission of Ambedkar are inalienable part of the Dalit movement.
It was a great opportunity for me to have heard his counseling on various occasions. For me, just an association with Dr Ambedkar made him a legend in my eyes. But that was not enough; his association with people’s movement particularly with those who believed in Ambedkarite perspective gave him credibility. He has tremendous knowledge about different caste and their issues. I can say that after Dr Ambedkar, he was the most read person in the community who spoke on the contemporary issues with great passion and with a command and conviction of ideas. Though, he was the most respected Ambedkarite of his time, one does not know why the politicians claiming Ambedkar’s legacy kept away from him. It is ironical that the tallest ambedkarite became victim of his caste identity. Though, he was most concerned about the schedule castes yet he often spoke about the marginalization of ‘Bhangis’. Yet, just usage of the term Bhangi made him unpopular among many of his own folks who started using Balmiki which according to Bhagwan Dasji was a term cleverly used to Hinduise the community. His book ‘ Main Bhangi Hoon’, became popular among people yet the community leaders never ever thought of involving him in their issues. I had put this question to him many times as why there is a perception that Balmikis did not join hand with Baba Saheb Ambedkar. But, Bhagwan Das ji was very clear about this and said that the myth that the Balmikis not being part of Ambedkarite movement was absolutely an attempt to divide Ambedkar’s struggle. . He referred to Baba Saheb and his support to the cause of scavengers in Punjab. According to him, it was the Bhangis who invited Baba Saheb to Punjab. But because of politicization of castes, many among his caste felt otherwise. Similarly, the other communities who felt that he was not from them alienated him. It was most tragic thing that I felt and that Bhagwan Dasji knew but Ambedkarism and Buddhism were his two commitments and he never dithered from that.
The 1990s were turbulent years in contemporary Indian political history. The forces of Hindutva were gaining ground with growing assertion of Dalits and backward communities. The Mandal commission report and its aftermath show how the Indian middle classes and caste Hindus did every dirty trick to thwart the implementation of the report. It also showed how the struggle for implementation of Mandal Commission Report was more carried forward by the Dalits and not by the so-called other backward communities for whom the entire exercise was meant. They bore the brunt of the contempt and violence of these reactionary forces. It was also a period of ascendancy of the Bahujan Samaj Party and its politics. They were becoming a force to reckon with yet Bhagwan Das and many other veteran Ambedkarites kept away from it. One does not know whether they kept away from it or were unwanted in the BSP kind of politics. He always focused to develop an enlightened Dalit community which can respond to the upper caste lies and manipulations through knowledge and arguments. He would go to different parts of the country particularly in organizations like Samta Sainik Dal to strengthen the movement.
It was tragic that the person who was an embodiment of a true Ambedkarite did not get the respect that he deserved. It is an undeniable fact that Bhagwan Das was perhaps the tallest Ambedkarite in the post Ambedkar era. The amount of work that he contributed to explore Ambedkar and his writings is unparallel. He was a living encyclopedia of Ambedkarite perspective on various contemporary issues. I can say without any doubt in my mind that whenever I had any doubt about anything about Baba Saheb’s writing and work, I would first speak to him and try to find the factual position. He had numerous anecdotes about Baba Saheb Ambedkar and how he got influenced with his life and action. Each time, I visited him; I would just listen to his arguments and narratives. With his personal warmth, each narrative was important and that is why I felt that I should record his views and one day I went with my camera to record his views on contemporary issues. It was a seer pleasure to listen his enlightened views.
It was always a sense of deep enlightenment to have met Bhagwan Dasji. A man who saw and worked with Ambedkar was so simple in his personal life. I was fortunate enough to have met him so many times and in our small association he too developed respect of the work that I was doing and hence was always available for the seminars and conferences that we organized on contemporary issues related to Dalits and marginalized. In those days, I was regular in these meetings and listening to him always gave a great pleasure. Anyone, who heard him for one or two hours, could never say that his grasp over the subject was not increased. His understanding of Indian caste system was tremendous. A widely traveled person, Bhagwan Dasji would inform you about the caste and sub caste issues with impeccable knowledge on the issue. That also showed that he was not just a book worm but a widely accessible person to people who understood their feelings and issues.
There was no difference in his personal life and beliefs. I knew many veteran Ambedkarites for whom Ambedkarism was just a political thought but Bhagwan Dasji proved through his life and mission how one can live a life of true Ambedkarite. It is difficult to see that kind of warmth that he possessed when we become machines without emotions and solidarity. As a young activist, I learnt from him so many things that it is difficult to narrate but every time when I would visit him, the first thing he would ask me to relax or take a cup of tea of coffee prepared by him. He would bring himself the tea and ask me to first have it and then discuss any other thing. He would inquire how am coming from a far away place to meet him and he always encouraged my deep sense of commitment to Ambedkarite thought.
Bhagwan Das was the first person who brought the issue untouchables ( I am using his term only as he refused to use the word Dalit) or Scheduled Castes at the international forums, at the United Nations and at various international human rights forums. Today, the Dalit issues have got international recognition and many may claim to have done it but the ground work for it was done by Bhagwan Das when there were not many civil society organizations working for human rights of the Dalits.
It is equally important to know that these Dalit rights organizations never felt to honor him or take his guidance on the issues of the Dalits in contemporary India. Of course, last year a Hindi literary journal devoted to Ambedkarite philosophy carried a special issue on him. It is tragic that a man of his stature remained a person non grata in his own community because he embraced Buddhism and was a true Ambedkarite. He was concerned about the manual scavenging practices in our society and was worried about their conditions and isolation with in the Dalit movement yet he never really supported the sub-caste identities. For him, being Ambedkarite was the most important part of a person life and that is where I felt that he was far above than many of his contemporaries. I understood the politics going in the name of Dalit Bahujan and had his own reservation about them. There were very few like him who could speak of conviction despite the emotional feelings of many. His commitment was to Baba Saheb Ambedkar’s thought and he traveled to nook and corner of the country to spread the message of Dr Ambedkar in true sense.
Today, when the media has been highlighting the ‘Dalit issues’ and some of them have given some ‘space’ to new ‘Dalit’ ‘movement’, yet the harsh reality is that none ever thought to approach him to speak on the contemporary issues. Was it because he did not have JNU tag which our media wants? Was it because he equally condemned the globalization and knew the international instruments of human rights much better and hence would not speak the language of the corporate media for the sake of appearing in their programme? It is shocking that none in the mainstream media thought of writing about the man who was undoubtedly the tallest Ambedkarite amongst us. Like Baba Saheb he reminded us the power of knowledge and self change. That cultural change in self made Bhagwan Das is much bigger than others but alas our political class, self proclaimed messiahs and so-called international activists would have taken a few things from him for the benefit of masses. He never resorted to rhetoric which are the hall mark of today’s literature and politics. He shined through his knowledge, his humility and his convictions. Whether corporatised brahmanical media remember him or not, Bhagwan Das remain am icon for all those who have not compromised on their basic principals and adhered to original philosophy of Baba Saheb Ambedkar of enlightenment through passion and participation. Like Baba Saheb Ambedkar, he left with a rich legacy of enormous material on Ambedkarism, Caste particularly related to Scheduled castes and on Buddhism. Generations will benefit from his work on caste and religion in India particularly those who are the most marginalized and how Dr Ambedkar fought his battle against the status quoits forces. As we grow and face so many challenges of caste, class, imperialism and communalism, Bhagwan Dasji’s writings will be the guide for us to understand Baba Saheb Ambedkar and how Ambedkar could have responded to current crisis. We remain indebted to him for his path breaking work on Baba Saheb Ambedkar and his unquestionable integrity to strengthen an Ambedkarite India where each one of us can live with equality, dignity and self esteem.
A true inheritor of Ambedkar’s mission
By Vidya Bhushan Rawat
The passing away of veteran Ambedkarite Bhagwan Das is closure of a great chapter in the contemporary Dalit movement. A close associate of Baba Saheb Ambedkar, Bhagwan Das in every sense of life lived a life of true follower of Baba Saheb. I had opportunities to meet on several occasions and would vouch that I remained highly impressed and in awe with his simplicity and the library of knowledge that he had on Ambedkar’s work and writing. He was not a rebel rouser but proved through his meticulous writings that he was much more concerned and his views were immensely important to the growth of Ambedkarite movement. Those narratives and documented work on the life and mission of Ambedkar are inalienable part of the Dalit movement.
It was a great opportunity for me to have heard his counseling on various occasions. For me, just an association with Dr Ambedkar made him a legend in my eyes. But that was not enough; his association with people’s movement particularly with those who believed in Ambedkarite perspective gave him credibility. He has tremendous knowledge about different caste and their issues. I can say that after Dr Ambedkar, he was the most read person in the community who spoke on the contemporary issues with great passion and with a command and conviction of ideas. Though, he was the most respected Ambedkarite of his time, one does not know why the politicians claiming Ambedkar’s legacy kept away from him. It is ironical that the tallest ambedkarite became victim of his caste identity. Though, he was most concerned about the schedule castes yet he often spoke about the marginalization of ‘Bhangis’. Yet, just usage of the term Bhangi made him unpopular among many of his own folks who started using Balmiki which according to Bhagwan Dasji was a term cleverly used to Hinduise the community. His book ‘ Main Bhangi Hoon’, became popular among people yet the community leaders never ever thought of involving him in their issues. I had put this question to him many times as why there is a perception that Balmikis did not join hand with Baba Saheb Ambedkar. But, Bhagwan Das ji was very clear about this and said that the myth that the Balmikis not being part of Ambedkarite movement was absolutely an attempt to divide Ambedkar’s struggle. . He referred to Baba Saheb and his support to the cause of scavengers in Punjab. According to him, it was the Bhangis who invited Baba Saheb to Punjab. But because of politicization of castes, many among his caste felt otherwise. Similarly, the other communities who felt that he was not from them alienated him. It was most tragic thing that I felt and that Bhagwan Dasji knew but Ambedkarism and Buddhism were his two commitments and he never dithered from that.
The 1990s were turbulent years in contemporary Indian political history. The forces of Hindutva were gaining ground with growing assertion of Dalits and backward communities. The Mandal commission report and its aftermath show how the Indian middle classes and caste Hindus did every dirty trick to thwart the implementation of the report. It also showed how the struggle for implementation of Mandal Commission Report was more carried forward by the Dalits and not by the so-called other backward communities for whom the entire exercise was meant. They bore the brunt of the contempt and violence of these reactionary forces. It was also a period of ascendancy of the Bahujan Samaj Party and its politics. They were becoming a force to reckon with yet Bhagwan Das and many other veteran Ambedkarites kept away from it. One does not know whether they kept away from it or were unwanted in the BSP kind of politics. He always focused to develop an enlightened Dalit community which can respond to the upper caste lies and manipulations through knowledge and arguments. He would go to different parts of the country particularly in organizations like Samta Sainik Dal to strengthen the movement.
It was tragic that the person who was an embodiment of a true Ambedkarite did not get the respect that he deserved. It is an undeniable fact that Bhagwan Das was perhaps the tallest Ambedkarite in the post Ambedkar era. The amount of work that he contributed to explore Ambedkar and his writings is unparallel. He was a living encyclopedia of Ambedkarite perspective on various contemporary issues. I can say without any doubt in my mind that whenever I had any doubt about anything about Baba Saheb’s writing and work, I would first speak to him and try to find the factual position. He had numerous anecdotes about Baba Saheb Ambedkar and how he got influenced with his life and action. Each time, I visited him; I would just listen to his arguments and narratives. With his personal warmth, each narrative was important and that is why I felt that I should record his views and one day I went with my camera to record his views on contemporary issues. It was a seer pleasure to listen his enlightened views.
It was always a sense of deep enlightenment to have met Bhagwan Dasji. A man who saw and worked with Ambedkar was so simple in his personal life. I was fortunate enough to have met him so many times and in our small association he too developed respect of the work that I was doing and hence was always available for the seminars and conferences that we organized on contemporary issues related to Dalits and marginalized. In those days, I was regular in these meetings and listening to him always gave a great pleasure. Anyone, who heard him for one or two hours, could never say that his grasp over the subject was not increased. His understanding of Indian caste system was tremendous. A widely traveled person, Bhagwan Dasji would inform you about the caste and sub caste issues with impeccable knowledge on the issue. That also showed that he was not just a book worm but a widely accessible person to people who understood their feelings and issues.
There was no difference in his personal life and beliefs. I knew many veteran Ambedkarites for whom Ambedkarism was just a political thought but Bhagwan Dasji proved through his life and mission how one can live a life of true Ambedkarite. It is difficult to see that kind of warmth that he possessed when we become machines without emotions and solidarity. As a young activist, I learnt from him so many things that it is difficult to narrate but every time when I would visit him, the first thing he would ask me to relax or take a cup of tea of coffee prepared by him. He would bring himself the tea and ask me to first have it and then discuss any other thing. He would inquire how am coming from a far away place to meet him and he always encouraged my deep sense of commitment to Ambedkarite thought.
Bhagwan Das was the first person who brought the issue untouchables ( I am using his term only as he refused to use the word Dalit) or Scheduled Castes at the international forums, at the United Nations and at various international human rights forums. Today, the Dalit issues have got international recognition and many may claim to have done it but the ground work for it was done by Bhagwan Das when there were not many civil society organizations working for human rights of the Dalits.
It is equally important to know that these Dalit rights organizations never felt to honor him or take his guidance on the issues of the Dalits in contemporary India. Of course, last year a Hindi literary journal devoted to Ambedkarite philosophy carried a special issue on him. It is tragic that a man of his stature remained a person non grata in his own community because he embraced Buddhism and was a true Ambedkarite. He was concerned about the manual scavenging practices in our society and was worried about their conditions and isolation with in the Dalit movement yet he never really supported the sub-caste identities. For him, being Ambedkarite was the most important part of a person life and that is where I felt that he was far above than many of his contemporaries. I understood the politics going in the name of Dalit Bahujan and had his own reservation about them. There were very few like him who could speak of conviction despite the emotional feelings of many. His commitment was to Baba Saheb Ambedkar’s thought and he traveled to nook and corner of the country to spread the message of Dr Ambedkar in true sense.
Today, when the media has been highlighting the ‘Dalit issues’ and some of them have given some ‘space’ to new ‘Dalit’ ‘movement’, yet the harsh reality is that none ever thought to approach him to speak on the contemporary issues. Was it because he did not have JNU tag which our media wants? Was it because he equally condemned the globalization and knew the international instruments of human rights much better and hence would not speak the language of the corporate media for the sake of appearing in their programme? It is shocking that none in the mainstream media thought of writing about the man who was undoubtedly the tallest Ambedkarite amongst us. Like Baba Saheb he reminded us the power of knowledge and self change. That cultural change in self made Bhagwan Das is much bigger than others but alas our political class, self proclaimed messiahs and so-called international activists would have taken a few things from him for the benefit of masses. He never resorted to rhetoric which are the hall mark of today’s literature and politics. He shined through his knowledge, his humility and his convictions. Whether corporatised brahmanical media remember him or not, Bhagwan Das remain am icon for all those who have not compromised on their basic principals and adhered to original philosophy of Baba Saheb Ambedkar of enlightenment through passion and participation. Like Baba Saheb Ambedkar, he left with a rich legacy of enormous material on Ambedkarism, Caste particularly related to Scheduled castes and on Buddhism. Generations will benefit from his work on caste and religion in India particularly those who are the most marginalized and how Dr Ambedkar fought his battle against the status quoits forces. As we grow and face so many challenges of caste, class, imperialism and communalism, Bhagwan Dasji’s writings will be the guide for us to understand Baba Saheb Ambedkar and how Ambedkar could have responded to current crisis. We remain indebted to him for his path breaking work on Baba Saheb Ambedkar and his unquestionable integrity to strengthen an Ambedkarite India where each one of us can live with equality, dignity and self esteem.
Saturday, November 06, 2010
How can we keep Indo-Pak relations free from prejudices
Reproducing from my archive in the interest of a positive India-Pakistan relationship.
Review Article
A Khakhi version of Indo-Pak relations
Vidya Bhushan Rawat
Indo-Pak relations have been subject of intense discussion for many in the subcontinent including the ‘security hawks’ and hate mongering foreign ministry experts. General K.M.Arif held important positions in the Pakistan army under different presidents and was particularly closer to General Zia-ul-Haq. Like many Pakistanis he also think that the stories on the Indo-Pak wars had been a one sided affair so far as only Indian versions have come out and Pakistan government has unnecessarily put restrictions on such publication. This is a lament by no less than a general that Pakistan should be an open society and that military should better concentrate on its professional duties rather then meddling into the political affairs of the country on the regular basis. This will, he argues, affect military capability to fight the external enemy i.e. India.
It is interesting to note the different intrigues that Pakistan polity face and the reasons sited by the General to justify military rule in Pakistan, though he must be complimented to put the internal security situation in Pakistan in a very clear perspective but the general has really been parochial and conventionalist when writing about India. His entire thesis on India shows how military in Pakistan and India both the countries have prejudices and bias about each other. The Pakistan army therefore does not hide its communal leaning in terming India as a Hindu state while Pakistan as a Muslim country. The general terms Nehru as a Hindu leader who had a vision for the country while Pakistan after the first round of leadership of the likes of M.A.Jinnah, Liaqat Ali Khan lacked a second ranking leadership. We sitting in India when analyse the Pakistan situation and its reason of military leadership lack the understanding of internal intrigues of Pakistan army and so-called democracy.
The general says that the 1965 Indo-Pak war was an unintended war in which ‘each side reacted disproportionately to the perceived provocation by the other and in the end lost control’. But he nevertheless blames India for the aggression quoting an known Jansangh leader Mr U.M.Trivedi in the Lok Sabha that the Indian army must go to ‘ right up to Lahore to bring Pakistan to its senses.’ Even the socialist leader Ram Manohar Lohia wanted India to over run Pakistan. Of course, many in Indian think the same way as the general says but such opinion exist the other side of the border and it would be better for saner people not to give legitimacy and justification to such rhetoric. The General then pat the novice Pakistan leadership under Ayub Khan and quotes him as saying: If Pakistan wanted to commit aggression it would have chosen a better area than the mud flats and also a better time when the Indian forces were on the run after their defeat at the hands of China.
The author then goes on comment on the crisis that erupted in East Pakistan now known as Bangladesh. Though unlike many other Pakistanis he admit the fault of Punjabi dominated bureaucracy and leadership to ignore the claims of Bengalis in Pakistan’s national-political life. He says that since most of the Punjabi’s and Sindhies were educated enough hence they had a major share in bureaucracy but unfortunately Bengalis did not have the ‘ trained manpower’ and most importantly they were culturally dominated by Hindus who had a grudge against Pakistan. There was a slanderous campaign about uneven treatment given to East Pakistanis. And according to General Khan, Pakistani leadership should have acted in a much-matured fashion to diffuse the crisis. It is interesting to note that the general blames the illiteracy and untrained Bengali leadership for their under representation in the services and leadership and feel that it was overreacted by the Awami League president Sheikh Mujeeb who was conspiring against the Pakistanis with clear support from the Indian ruling establishment.
The process of Bangladesh was very old and began with the opposition of Urdu language in East Bengal where students were adamant that Bangla should be their mother tongue. Here the learned General supports Jinnah for supporting Urdu as the link language of the country and relates Bengali as a clearly Hindu dominated language, which un-necessarily swayed the Bangla Muslims. In the 1970 elections held for Pakistan’s National Assembly, Awami League won 160 seats out of 162 reserved for East Pakistan while Pakistan People’s Party of Z.A.Bhutto won 81 seats from West Pakistan out of 138 seats reserved for them. Clear enough Awami League should have been allowed to form the government but larger than life ego of Bhutto never really allowed this to succeed. According to the General, since both the parties were regional hence they should have formed the government jointly but he did not say that if there was no consensus than the democratically elected largest political party i.e. Awami League should have been invited to form the government in Pakistan. But then the general only justified this by his earlier saying that though East Bengal has a majority of seats and population, it did not have a ‘merit’ like the Punjabis and Sindhies and hence could not be filled in the respective quota. This itself is an argument which many of our upper caste fellows in India gives regarding the Dalits on the grounds that they don’t have required merit and hence they should not be allowed to come up with the general category boys. The argument regarding Urdu language is the same as that we face here in India regarding Hindi when states like Tamilnadu could go the extent of threatening to secede from India but then Nehru has a greater vision to run India and the foundation of Pakistan was on a very dangerous precedent. If Islam were the only thing that united all the Muslims of the subcontinent then Pakistan would not have so many internal problems for which blame is given not to Indian establishment but Hindus. This is a dangerous theory like Islam being presented globally as a religion of sword. The fact presented here reflects clearly that every community wants to preserve its culture and language. Nothing could be far from the truth when we say that religion decide culture. The proximity between Bengali Muslim and Bengali Hindu is much more than a Bengali Muslim and a Punjabi Muslim. It is true for all other cases.
Writing about Mohajir problem in Pakistan the author makes these points: “These people had settled in Pakistan but could not emotionally disengage themselves from the Ganga-Jamuni culture. Instead of merging themselves with the social and cultural environment of Sindh to create a new and enriched blend of distinticitve identity for Pakistan, they endeavored to practice their UP culture in the desert of Sindh and hoped that their cultural identity would also be adopted by the old Sindhis. This attitude brought them in conflict with the local nationalists power centers who were themselves no less possessive and proud of their own ancient language, distintictive dress and rich cultural heritage.” Interestingly, the general does not say that Pakistan itself became a victim of its own identity problem and that Muslim League a party of rich peasantry and migrants from UP had to ultimately bow to the pressure of local ethnic identities, though he suggest that Military interventions in Pakistan came because of a virtually corrupt and defunct political leadership and army being a nationalist organizations could not have allowed the country to go like this. Appreciably, the general still points out that Army is not the final answer for Pakistan’s problems but it is the democracy which will make Pakistan a strong nation and he lament how the vision of a democratic, plural and progressive Pakistan was lost due to the lure of power by the powerful feudal elite in Pakistan who usurped everything in the name of democracy. He says, “ Military dictators were not the sole spoilers of the democratic order. Many elected leaders in the country were in fact only democratic in name but autocratic in their conduct and behavior. They promoted a brand of sham democracy to further their personal interests and for reasons of political expediency. Such persons contributed no less in eroding Pakistan’s nascent democratic order.”
Paying tribute to Nehru as a great visionary, the General has made a post-mortem of Pakistan’s various military juntas who ruled the country under the pretext of democracy. In a remarkable show of clarity and sobriety he says: “ In their respective tenures in office Ayub, Yahya, Bhutto and Zia wore two hats each, one, that of the Chief martial law administrator, and the second, of the President of Pakistan. It was an administrative, legal and diplomatic requirement for the country to have a head of the state. However, in the spirit of law, this designation was misnomer. The four presidents of Pakistan were in reality about absolute military rulers who did not derive their authority either from the constitution, which was abrogated or suspended, or from the Parliament, which did not exist. They ruled by the gun and wielded absolute power without any institutional system of accountability.”
The author must be complimented for bringing out the most intriguing factors of Pakistan polity and its armed forces and he no doubt admits that in the power game it was West Pakistan, which dominated despite East Pakistan’s majority. Terming Z.A.Bhutto, former Pakistan prime minister as ‘ a feudal by birth, a socialist by his own declaration, but a capitalist at heart’, he says that Bhutto’s downfall was ultimately his own creation. The democratic institutions were considerably weakened during his period. That was a fact also in the cased of Nawaz Sharief which paved way for the intervention of army under General Parvez Musharraf. The general gives version of what Musharraf gave to Pakistan and does not try to give the other side of the story. He says that since the Institution of army was under threat hence Musharraf had to intervene. In an interesting inner revelation, the general says that General Zia was not interested to step in when Bhutto’s personalized cult touched a nadir in Pakistan. It was Bhutto, who wanted to divide the army and the army declined to fire on the protesters against the Bhutto administration which Zia feared would divide the only saved institution of Pakistan and that’s why he unwillingly imposed Martial Law in Pakistan. He however could not hide his military bias when he says that it was not military which gave death sentence to Bhutto but the courts and that Zia ultimately gave his consent for final hanging under public pressure. Given the cult of Bhutto in Pakistan, even today, one can only laugh at this that the president did not give pardon to a former prime minister because the people welcomed his persecution. The fact is that Zia went against a very large number of international appeals for an amnesty to Bhutto and hanged him so that he could rule Pakistan uninterruptedly because after Bhutto’s death Pakistan was plunged into a political crisis.
In the Epilogue of the book, the author speak about the Kargil war and how the ‘freedom fighters’ occupied the Kargil-Drass sector and surprised India’s military command. However, if this was the case of ‘freedom fighters’, then one wonder as the why the author is petting the Pakistan army for giving a run to India and finally Pakistan submitted because of the American Pressure.
This book has an interesting narration and many new things for the students of south Asian politics and army interventions in Pakistan. Perhaps, this is for the first time that a Pakistani general has openly given his viewpoint on the polity of the country. It is also good that a general of his caliber support democratic set up in the country and want the army to be out of the day-to-day politics of the country. However, there are many things which need to be introspected by the Indians and Pakistanis both, which is about our shared history and culture. It is here where the army men need more concentration, otherwise how could one justify comment from General Arif about Mohajir’s practicing
‘Ganga Jamuni’ culture in Pakistan was against the new identity of Pakistan. Why the general think that everything that Indian is dangerous for the identity of Pakistan. How could those who created Pakistan ( Mohazirs were in the forefront of it), forget about their culture and language. After all, the same general justify Urdu language as being declared as the national language of Pakistan despite the fact that it was not a language of any province in Pakistan. After all, Urdu itself is a ‘Gangajamnui’ language and has a great cultural legacy. Pakistan and India are two sovereign nation and have to remain neighbor for ever and it is therefore necessary as both work together to achieve peace and prosperity in the region and for this shared cultural legacy must be brought forward, rather than creating a fear psychosis of alien culture in the minds of our people which our political-military leadership had been doing in India and Pakistan. Ganga-Jamuni culture is not a bad culture and would definitely do better for Pakistan society than any other culture, which has divided the society. The hegimonistic Hindu India or Muslim evil Pakistan, as our army men would make us believe should now become a matter of past. This book must be read by all particularly Indians as it gives the ‘other’ side of story. It is an informative work and gives us ample scope to introspect and the author has full marks when he repeatedly speaks of a viable democracy in Pakistan free from religious fanaticism. Such thought gives us hope that military leadership in Pakistan will one day realize that ultimately it is democracy, which will bring laurels to Pakistan and not the army.
Name of the Book: Khaki Shadows: Pakistan (1947-1997)
Author: General K.M.Arif
Published by: Oxford University Press, Karachi
Year: 2001
Price: not mentioned
Pages: 450
Review Article
A Khakhi version of Indo-Pak relations
Vidya Bhushan Rawat
Indo-Pak relations have been subject of intense discussion for many in the subcontinent including the ‘security hawks’ and hate mongering foreign ministry experts. General K.M.Arif held important positions in the Pakistan army under different presidents and was particularly closer to General Zia-ul-Haq. Like many Pakistanis he also think that the stories on the Indo-Pak wars had been a one sided affair so far as only Indian versions have come out and Pakistan government has unnecessarily put restrictions on such publication. This is a lament by no less than a general that Pakistan should be an open society and that military should better concentrate on its professional duties rather then meddling into the political affairs of the country on the regular basis. This will, he argues, affect military capability to fight the external enemy i.e. India.
It is interesting to note the different intrigues that Pakistan polity face and the reasons sited by the General to justify military rule in Pakistan, though he must be complimented to put the internal security situation in Pakistan in a very clear perspective but the general has really been parochial and conventionalist when writing about India. His entire thesis on India shows how military in Pakistan and India both the countries have prejudices and bias about each other. The Pakistan army therefore does not hide its communal leaning in terming India as a Hindu state while Pakistan as a Muslim country. The general terms Nehru as a Hindu leader who had a vision for the country while Pakistan after the first round of leadership of the likes of M.A.Jinnah, Liaqat Ali Khan lacked a second ranking leadership. We sitting in India when analyse the Pakistan situation and its reason of military leadership lack the understanding of internal intrigues of Pakistan army and so-called democracy.
The general says that the 1965 Indo-Pak war was an unintended war in which ‘each side reacted disproportionately to the perceived provocation by the other and in the end lost control’. But he nevertheless blames India for the aggression quoting an known Jansangh leader Mr U.M.Trivedi in the Lok Sabha that the Indian army must go to ‘ right up to Lahore to bring Pakistan to its senses.’ Even the socialist leader Ram Manohar Lohia wanted India to over run Pakistan. Of course, many in Indian think the same way as the general says but such opinion exist the other side of the border and it would be better for saner people not to give legitimacy and justification to such rhetoric. The General then pat the novice Pakistan leadership under Ayub Khan and quotes him as saying: If Pakistan wanted to commit aggression it would have chosen a better area than the mud flats and also a better time when the Indian forces were on the run after their defeat at the hands of China.
The author then goes on comment on the crisis that erupted in East Pakistan now known as Bangladesh. Though unlike many other Pakistanis he admit the fault of Punjabi dominated bureaucracy and leadership to ignore the claims of Bengalis in Pakistan’s national-political life. He says that since most of the Punjabi’s and Sindhies were educated enough hence they had a major share in bureaucracy but unfortunately Bengalis did not have the ‘ trained manpower’ and most importantly they were culturally dominated by Hindus who had a grudge against Pakistan. There was a slanderous campaign about uneven treatment given to East Pakistanis. And according to General Khan, Pakistani leadership should have acted in a much-matured fashion to diffuse the crisis. It is interesting to note that the general blames the illiteracy and untrained Bengali leadership for their under representation in the services and leadership and feel that it was overreacted by the Awami League president Sheikh Mujeeb who was conspiring against the Pakistanis with clear support from the Indian ruling establishment.
The process of Bangladesh was very old and began with the opposition of Urdu language in East Bengal where students were adamant that Bangla should be their mother tongue. Here the learned General supports Jinnah for supporting Urdu as the link language of the country and relates Bengali as a clearly Hindu dominated language, which un-necessarily swayed the Bangla Muslims. In the 1970 elections held for Pakistan’s National Assembly, Awami League won 160 seats out of 162 reserved for East Pakistan while Pakistan People’s Party of Z.A.Bhutto won 81 seats from West Pakistan out of 138 seats reserved for them. Clear enough Awami League should have been allowed to form the government but larger than life ego of Bhutto never really allowed this to succeed. According to the General, since both the parties were regional hence they should have formed the government jointly but he did not say that if there was no consensus than the democratically elected largest political party i.e. Awami League should have been invited to form the government in Pakistan. But then the general only justified this by his earlier saying that though East Bengal has a majority of seats and population, it did not have a ‘merit’ like the Punjabis and Sindhies and hence could not be filled in the respective quota. This itself is an argument which many of our upper caste fellows in India gives regarding the Dalits on the grounds that they don’t have required merit and hence they should not be allowed to come up with the general category boys. The argument regarding Urdu language is the same as that we face here in India regarding Hindi when states like Tamilnadu could go the extent of threatening to secede from India but then Nehru has a greater vision to run India and the foundation of Pakistan was on a very dangerous precedent. If Islam were the only thing that united all the Muslims of the subcontinent then Pakistan would not have so many internal problems for which blame is given not to Indian establishment but Hindus. This is a dangerous theory like Islam being presented globally as a religion of sword. The fact presented here reflects clearly that every community wants to preserve its culture and language. Nothing could be far from the truth when we say that religion decide culture. The proximity between Bengali Muslim and Bengali Hindu is much more than a Bengali Muslim and a Punjabi Muslim. It is true for all other cases.
Writing about Mohajir problem in Pakistan the author makes these points: “These people had settled in Pakistan but could not emotionally disengage themselves from the Ganga-Jamuni culture. Instead of merging themselves with the social and cultural environment of Sindh to create a new and enriched blend of distinticitve identity for Pakistan, they endeavored to practice their UP culture in the desert of Sindh and hoped that their cultural identity would also be adopted by the old Sindhis. This attitude brought them in conflict with the local nationalists power centers who were themselves no less possessive and proud of their own ancient language, distintictive dress and rich cultural heritage.” Interestingly, the general does not say that Pakistan itself became a victim of its own identity problem and that Muslim League a party of rich peasantry and migrants from UP had to ultimately bow to the pressure of local ethnic identities, though he suggest that Military interventions in Pakistan came because of a virtually corrupt and defunct political leadership and army being a nationalist organizations could not have allowed the country to go like this. Appreciably, the general still points out that Army is not the final answer for Pakistan’s problems but it is the democracy which will make Pakistan a strong nation and he lament how the vision of a democratic, plural and progressive Pakistan was lost due to the lure of power by the powerful feudal elite in Pakistan who usurped everything in the name of democracy. He says, “ Military dictators were not the sole spoilers of the democratic order. Many elected leaders in the country were in fact only democratic in name but autocratic in their conduct and behavior. They promoted a brand of sham democracy to further their personal interests and for reasons of political expediency. Such persons contributed no less in eroding Pakistan’s nascent democratic order.”
Paying tribute to Nehru as a great visionary, the General has made a post-mortem of Pakistan’s various military juntas who ruled the country under the pretext of democracy. In a remarkable show of clarity and sobriety he says: “ In their respective tenures in office Ayub, Yahya, Bhutto and Zia wore two hats each, one, that of the Chief martial law administrator, and the second, of the President of Pakistan. It was an administrative, legal and diplomatic requirement for the country to have a head of the state. However, in the spirit of law, this designation was misnomer. The four presidents of Pakistan were in reality about absolute military rulers who did not derive their authority either from the constitution, which was abrogated or suspended, or from the Parliament, which did not exist. They ruled by the gun and wielded absolute power without any institutional system of accountability.”
The author must be complimented for bringing out the most intriguing factors of Pakistan polity and its armed forces and he no doubt admits that in the power game it was West Pakistan, which dominated despite East Pakistan’s majority. Terming Z.A.Bhutto, former Pakistan prime minister as ‘ a feudal by birth, a socialist by his own declaration, but a capitalist at heart’, he says that Bhutto’s downfall was ultimately his own creation. The democratic institutions were considerably weakened during his period. That was a fact also in the cased of Nawaz Sharief which paved way for the intervention of army under General Parvez Musharraf. The general gives version of what Musharraf gave to Pakistan and does not try to give the other side of the story. He says that since the Institution of army was under threat hence Musharraf had to intervene. In an interesting inner revelation, the general says that General Zia was not interested to step in when Bhutto’s personalized cult touched a nadir in Pakistan. It was Bhutto, who wanted to divide the army and the army declined to fire on the protesters against the Bhutto administration which Zia feared would divide the only saved institution of Pakistan and that’s why he unwillingly imposed Martial Law in Pakistan. He however could not hide his military bias when he says that it was not military which gave death sentence to Bhutto but the courts and that Zia ultimately gave his consent for final hanging under public pressure. Given the cult of Bhutto in Pakistan, even today, one can only laugh at this that the president did not give pardon to a former prime minister because the people welcomed his persecution. The fact is that Zia went against a very large number of international appeals for an amnesty to Bhutto and hanged him so that he could rule Pakistan uninterruptedly because after Bhutto’s death Pakistan was plunged into a political crisis.
In the Epilogue of the book, the author speak about the Kargil war and how the ‘freedom fighters’ occupied the Kargil-Drass sector and surprised India’s military command. However, if this was the case of ‘freedom fighters’, then one wonder as the why the author is petting the Pakistan army for giving a run to India and finally Pakistan submitted because of the American Pressure.
This book has an interesting narration and many new things for the students of south Asian politics and army interventions in Pakistan. Perhaps, this is for the first time that a Pakistani general has openly given his viewpoint on the polity of the country. It is also good that a general of his caliber support democratic set up in the country and want the army to be out of the day-to-day politics of the country. However, there are many things which need to be introspected by the Indians and Pakistanis both, which is about our shared history and culture. It is here where the army men need more concentration, otherwise how could one justify comment from General Arif about Mohajir’s practicing
‘Ganga Jamuni’ culture in Pakistan was against the new identity of Pakistan. Why the general think that everything that Indian is dangerous for the identity of Pakistan. How could those who created Pakistan ( Mohazirs were in the forefront of it), forget about their culture and language. After all, the same general justify Urdu language as being declared as the national language of Pakistan despite the fact that it was not a language of any province in Pakistan. After all, Urdu itself is a ‘Gangajamnui’ language and has a great cultural legacy. Pakistan and India are two sovereign nation and have to remain neighbor for ever and it is therefore necessary as both work together to achieve peace and prosperity in the region and for this shared cultural legacy must be brought forward, rather than creating a fear psychosis of alien culture in the minds of our people which our political-military leadership had been doing in India and Pakistan. Ganga-Jamuni culture is not a bad culture and would definitely do better for Pakistan society than any other culture, which has divided the society. The hegimonistic Hindu India or Muslim evil Pakistan, as our army men would make us believe should now become a matter of past. This book must be read by all particularly Indians as it gives the ‘other’ side of story. It is an informative work and gives us ample scope to introspect and the author has full marks when he repeatedly speaks of a viable democracy in Pakistan free from religious fanaticism. Such thought gives us hope that military leadership in Pakistan will one day realize that ultimately it is democracy, which will bring laurels to Pakistan and not the army.
Name of the Book: Khaki Shadows: Pakistan (1947-1997)
Author: General K.M.Arif
Published by: Oxford University Press, Karachi
Year: 2001
Price: not mentioned
Pages: 450
Thursday, November 04, 2010
Understanding the Kashmir conflict through the eyes of a British relief workder
Lessons from a relief worker’s diary
By Vidya Bhushan Rawat
Discussion on the India-Pakistan relations often turned into the historical aspect of the issue namely Partition and we all have our own version of it. The aftermath of partition was equally horrific as migration of the huge population created an unimaginable problem for the government of both the newly independent countries and rumor mills had been working full time and no doubt some of the hardcore elements in both the government were ready to exploit the situation. And soon after independence the issue of
‘Mercenaries tribal’ assault as India wants us to believe or tribal uprising as Pakistan would like us believe, in Kashmir brought both the countries to war. The problem remained unresolved even after 50 years and one of the main reasons of deteriorating relation between the two countries. While Indian considers Kashmir as the symbol of their secular pride, the Pakistanis consider it an unfinished agenda of partition. IN between no body talks of Kashmiri people and how fundamentalism has grown there. The author Richard Symonds was a British officer who worked in different positions in India and a member of Kashmir’s independent Commission form by the UN. He had tried to be impartial though he had admitted that his access to Indian leaders was greater than the access to the Pakistani leaders, some of whom might be arrogant. The author no doubt learn from his Indian experiences and did not just confined himself to the issue of relief issue which he dealt during the famine period in Bengal for which he blamed a lackluster government headed by the Muslim League and the career oriented bureaucrats who were more busy to make happy their bosses then addressing the issues of the people. And see the subcontinent’s bureaucratic structure; it is still following to serve the same interest groups which it was serving during the Raj.
The author has brought many interesting facets about 1942 famine, partition, migration and Kashmir which are essential for students of history and political science who want to understand the core of the problems. The author has brought forward some such issues which have never been highlighted by any one because of his direct access to them and through his own experiences. Unfortunately, very little is available from his book about the people’s version of the Kashmir question, an issue that still haunts the entire subcontinent. Now the issue is not who is right and who is wrong. Who played treachery and who betrayed people’s cause? The issue is much bigger for how long we will continue to divide the same people, who have same cultural legacy, who fought together against imperialism, who contributed immensely for our art, architecture and music. Symonds experienced writing, therefore, should help us resolve our issues amicably rather then making them unrealistic and impossible. It should make our resolve stronger for a peaceful co-existence and must not think it anti-national if we question the wisdom of our leaders. It also reflects that whether demand for Pakistan might have come from communal consideration (this author does not pass any judgment on the issue, as it has both the sides) yet, Jinnah was never a communal man.
After Fifty years now we need to hear those who were fortunate enough to visit both sides of the border frequently and were able to bring the fact which remains tightly gripped in the hands of either Pakistani establishment or Indian bureaucrats because for long, we have left the objectivity to our parochial nationalistic interests. And it seems history for our officials and political leaders means when it suits to their ‘national pride’ or when Prithvi Raj defeated Mohammad Gori or later when Mohd Gori defeated Prithvi Raj Chauhan as both have now become symbol of Hindu and Muslim victory over each other.
So far from this meddling, Richard Symonds has done an interesting work to give us the first hand account of his experiences as a relief worker in India from 1942-1949. Symonds was not only a relief worker as the ‘officer in charge of the Indian section of the ‘Friends Ambulance Unit’, based in Calcutta during the 1943 infamous famine of Bengal. He was the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Bengal’. This book reveals the multifaceted personality of symonds as he not only writes about famine issue but also make critical observation on important aspect of India Pakistan relation.
It is interesting to note the 1942 account that the government was a shaky coalition headed by a former Leaguer Fazal-ul-Haq who formed his Krishak Proja Party and was joined by Forward Block and Hindu Mahasabha. In 1943 another Muslim League government was formed under Nazim-ud-Din with several Hindu and Scheduled caste members. This reflects how the elements of extreme rights were ready to leave aside their mutual hatred for the power politics. Terming the attitude of the bureaucrat in Bengal as pathetic and careerist the author quote an Australian journalist who was in India that time and went back saying that “ It will not be possible for many years ahead for India to do without a large number of British individuals in government service in a wide ranger of administrative, legal, medical, police and other professional and technical appointments.” Though this was a fact yet reflect unnecessary white superiority complex. In the same book the author has compliments two bureaucrats from India and Pakistan M/s H.M.Patel who later became India’s finance minister in 1975 under Morarji Desai’s government and Muhammad Ali from Pakistan for their exemplary work done after the partition.
In September 1947, one month after the partition, hundreds of thousands of people started migrating. There were communal disturbances and tempers were running high. When a communally charged Hindu stood in front of Nehru’s car and said: “they have their Pakistan, we will have our Hindustan”, Nehru got down from his car and caught the person from his collar and shook him. But despite Nehru, two ministers in the cabinet Sardar Patel, and Dr Shyama Prasad Mookerjee, who was the founder of Jan Sangh, were
not at all happy with the creation of Pakistan and issue of Muslims in India. It is important to know for the readers that former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee served as Secretary to Mookerjee, who groomed him as his political heir.
In November 1947 Jammu had seen the communal virus. The situation in Delhi was also grim though the cabinet committee was regularly meeting and Gandhi had strictly asked them to take care of the Muslims. About 1,75,000 refugees had come to Kurukshetra near Ambala and were living in tents. Because of being in a senior position and looking after the refugees work, access to government officials in both the countries was most interesting part of Symonds work. He quotes British Brigadier Collyer of Pakistani army in Sailkot: “War with India would be a folly for Pakistan, his troops are becoming more belligerent. The frontier tribes, he thought, had been let into the Kashmir valley by the Pakistanis as a bridge, a substitute for subsidy which the British used to pay them.”
It is interesting that the author reflect the Pakistani side also on the issue of Kashmir problem though he refuses to take side. He quotes a Pakistani official saying that Mount Batten had influenced Radcliff over the boundary award which had not only opened a possible route between India and Kashmir but had deprived Lahore of its source of electricity. Was it Mount Batten’s dislike for Jinnah because the latter did not make him Governor General of Pakistan as India did? Unfortunately, the issue of Governor General might have come later. It is also interesting to note that until 1941 Poonch had its own Raja and after his death the Maharaja of Kashmir took control over it and imposed severe taxes on his Muslim subjects. Perhaps that was one of the reasons why people stood up against him in revolt.
Very little has been written on the possible role of Gandhi on such an important issue of Kashmir. Had his importance finished after India attained independence from the British? On December 6th 1946 when the author met Gandhi at his house he ‘insisted’, Kashmir must not be partitioned even ‘though the whole of it were to go to Pakistan’. Gandhi felt dejected with the leadership at the end but his human side has also been reflected when he took personal care of Symonds when he almost fainted after meeting with him. Gandhi did not allow him to be admitted at the government hospital but instead insisted him (Symonds) to be shifted at his (Gandhi) house and according to the author he was then able to see Gandhi’s multi faceted personality and his philosophy of life which make him a much towering personality than any other political leader of his time.
When Indian and Pakistani army were fighting with each other over Kashmir in 1947, you call it an irony or paradox, the Commanders-in-chief on both sides were British and were in frequent telephone contact with each others in kind of chess game, implying ‘ if you bomb this, we shall shell that.’ This need to be pondered whether the Kashmir issue is a British creation who never wanted it to resolve? It need to be understood in the international strategy of the former Raj whether division of Kashmir between India and Pakistan have not been a British strategy so that a peace zone is not allowed to grow in the subcontinent. Otherwise who will go to them for assistance and support if there is a peace between India and Pakistan. It is also revealed in this book that Gilgit was always under direct control of the British and that people there were fully in favor of remaining with Pakistan in the very similar way as the people of Ladakh and Jammu were firmly behind India.
Symonds who also authored, ‘The Making of Pakistan”, reflected his experience with Pakistan ruling elite. They are interesting and important for the growth of a secular politics of the subcontinent. If partition is considered as a communal flair up then it is also important for us to reveal such facets of our leadership and people that reflected their broader outlook. The author compliments Jinnah as having understood the contribution of minorities particularly Hindus in the life of Pakistan and that is why, according to him Jinnah insisted, ‘Islamic flag of the state should include a broad white band to represent minorities.’ By explaining the hitherto un-known fact of Gandhi and Jinnah, the author has done a great service for the cause of common cultural legacy of the subcontinent, which is being erased by the war-mongering elite in both the countries. One such issue was assault on minorities in both the countries. On hearing about atrocities on Sikhs and Hindus in Pakistan, Jinnah told the National Assembly: “This is not the moment to go into the origin or cause of the holocaust or to apportion blame as to which community has disgraced itself the most. It will be for historians to give the verdict.” Jinnah’s political heir Liaquat Ali khan was equally committed to the cause of minorities and upliftment of depressed communities when he said in the Pakistan’s Constituent Assembly: “ Adequate provisions shall be made for the minorities to profess and practice their religion and develop their culture and adequate provision shall be made to safeguard the legitimate interests of minorities and backward and depressed communities and said that even a non Muslim could become the head of Muslim state. However, these facts have gone out of the minds of people. Even at the government level it became difficult for Pakistan to find non-Muslim representation
in the government and other semi government autonomous bodies. J.N. Mandal was the only non-Muslim minister that time belonged to Dalit community from undivided Bengal. Unfortunately despite over several millions Scheduled castes in East Bengal, which gave 17 SC members, but none of them was given due representation. The Pakistan government had reserved 6% of its civil services posts for the Scheduled Castes but practically it did not serve any purpose. Mandal feared Dalits might not get their due respect and representation in Pakistan and left for India as he was deeply impressed with the work done by Dr B.R.Ambedkar, the father of India’s Constitution and leaders of Dalits in India, who fought for their equal rights and political representation and reservation in the government services.
In the Epilogue of the book, the author sadly remarks that Pakistan could not provide a credible second ranking leadership after Jinnah and Liaqat Ali Khan and therefore a country which was hailed for high economic growth rate in early 50s and 60s lost its path.
The author has paid rich tribute to Gandhi for his human spirit and his ability to speak truth and admit his faults. He said: “ There is no such thing as Gandhiism. I don’t claim to have originated any new principle or doctrine. I have simply tried in my own way to apply the eternal truths to our daily life and problems. The opinions, I have formed and the conclusions I have arrived at are not by any means final. I may change them tomorrow if I find better ones” And that is one reason why the author says that despite his agreement with Gandhi on many issues he has not accepted anything as Gospel truth even from Mahatma but as he says from giving Gandhi’s example that ‘ there is no shame in admitting to changing an opinion in light of new evidence’. One can only hope that the government of the India and Pakistan will forget their bitterness emanating from the past and work for the people’s wish. Hopefully, we will become countries where people’s wish remains supreme and democratic values and multiculturalism strengthen every passing day and where the rulers are not ‘entrapped by pomp and pageantry.’ It is in this way, this book serve greater purpose if bureaucrats, and those in power, admit their follies, sit together and work on the issues facing their countries rather than fanning communal passion and blaming each others for all the evils they face after independence. Time call for an introspection and action for reconciliation, only then we could say that history is a learning process for civilization and how Jinnah said that it is not up to the political leaders but to the historians to decide as what went wrong. There is a need to spread these words of our visionary political leaders to our masses who have termed them either Pro Muslim or Pro Hindu but nothing as human being. Jinnah’s concern about security of Hindus were no lesser than Nehru’s concern about Muslims in India, hence it is important for us to speak about the issues and not heighten tension on the religious bigotry and communalization process which will ultimately strengthen hate-mongers and war- mongers in our subcontinent. It is also essential that such kind of revealing books must be publicized and probably published in local languages so that more and more people are able to read them and understand the humane nature of their political leaders. More importantly it is important for the current lot of political leaders to read such books and make their vision a little broader in terms of great cultural legacy of the subcontinent.
Name of the Book: In the Margins of Independence: A Relief worker in India and Pakistan: 1942-1949
Author: Richard Symonds
Publisher: Oxford University Press, Karachi,
Pages: 144
Price: not mentioned
Published : 2001
By Vidya Bhushan Rawat
Discussion on the India-Pakistan relations often turned into the historical aspect of the issue namely Partition and we all have our own version of it. The aftermath of partition was equally horrific as migration of the huge population created an unimaginable problem for the government of both the newly independent countries and rumor mills had been working full time and no doubt some of the hardcore elements in both the government were ready to exploit the situation. And soon after independence the issue of
‘Mercenaries tribal’ assault as India wants us to believe or tribal uprising as Pakistan would like us believe, in Kashmir brought both the countries to war. The problem remained unresolved even after 50 years and one of the main reasons of deteriorating relation between the two countries. While Indian considers Kashmir as the symbol of their secular pride, the Pakistanis consider it an unfinished agenda of partition. IN between no body talks of Kashmiri people and how fundamentalism has grown there. The author Richard Symonds was a British officer who worked in different positions in India and a member of Kashmir’s independent Commission form by the UN. He had tried to be impartial though he had admitted that his access to Indian leaders was greater than the access to the Pakistani leaders, some of whom might be arrogant. The author no doubt learn from his Indian experiences and did not just confined himself to the issue of relief issue which he dealt during the famine period in Bengal for which he blamed a lackluster government headed by the Muslim League and the career oriented bureaucrats who were more busy to make happy their bosses then addressing the issues of the people. And see the subcontinent’s bureaucratic structure; it is still following to serve the same interest groups which it was serving during the Raj.
The author has brought many interesting facets about 1942 famine, partition, migration and Kashmir which are essential for students of history and political science who want to understand the core of the problems. The author has brought forward some such issues which have never been highlighted by any one because of his direct access to them and through his own experiences. Unfortunately, very little is available from his book about the people’s version of the Kashmir question, an issue that still haunts the entire subcontinent. Now the issue is not who is right and who is wrong. Who played treachery and who betrayed people’s cause? The issue is much bigger for how long we will continue to divide the same people, who have same cultural legacy, who fought together against imperialism, who contributed immensely for our art, architecture and music. Symonds experienced writing, therefore, should help us resolve our issues amicably rather then making them unrealistic and impossible. It should make our resolve stronger for a peaceful co-existence and must not think it anti-national if we question the wisdom of our leaders. It also reflects that whether demand for Pakistan might have come from communal consideration (this author does not pass any judgment on the issue, as it has both the sides) yet, Jinnah was never a communal man.
After Fifty years now we need to hear those who were fortunate enough to visit both sides of the border frequently and were able to bring the fact which remains tightly gripped in the hands of either Pakistani establishment or Indian bureaucrats because for long, we have left the objectivity to our parochial nationalistic interests. And it seems history for our officials and political leaders means when it suits to their ‘national pride’ or when Prithvi Raj defeated Mohammad Gori or later when Mohd Gori defeated Prithvi Raj Chauhan as both have now become symbol of Hindu and Muslim victory over each other.
So far from this meddling, Richard Symonds has done an interesting work to give us the first hand account of his experiences as a relief worker in India from 1942-1949. Symonds was not only a relief worker as the ‘officer in charge of the Indian section of the ‘Friends Ambulance Unit’, based in Calcutta during the 1943 infamous famine of Bengal. He was the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Bengal’. This book reveals the multifaceted personality of symonds as he not only writes about famine issue but also make critical observation on important aspect of India Pakistan relation.
It is interesting to note the 1942 account that the government was a shaky coalition headed by a former Leaguer Fazal-ul-Haq who formed his Krishak Proja Party and was joined by Forward Block and Hindu Mahasabha. In 1943 another Muslim League government was formed under Nazim-ud-Din with several Hindu and Scheduled caste members. This reflects how the elements of extreme rights were ready to leave aside their mutual hatred for the power politics. Terming the attitude of the bureaucrat in Bengal as pathetic and careerist the author quote an Australian journalist who was in India that time and went back saying that “ It will not be possible for many years ahead for India to do without a large number of British individuals in government service in a wide ranger of administrative, legal, medical, police and other professional and technical appointments.” Though this was a fact yet reflect unnecessary white superiority complex. In the same book the author has compliments two bureaucrats from India and Pakistan M/s H.M.Patel who later became India’s finance minister in 1975 under Morarji Desai’s government and Muhammad Ali from Pakistan for their exemplary work done after the partition.
In September 1947, one month after the partition, hundreds of thousands of people started migrating. There were communal disturbances and tempers were running high. When a communally charged Hindu stood in front of Nehru’s car and said: “they have their Pakistan, we will have our Hindustan”, Nehru got down from his car and caught the person from his collar and shook him. But despite Nehru, two ministers in the cabinet Sardar Patel, and Dr Shyama Prasad Mookerjee, who was the founder of Jan Sangh, were
not at all happy with the creation of Pakistan and issue of Muslims in India. It is important to know for the readers that former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee served as Secretary to Mookerjee, who groomed him as his political heir.
In November 1947 Jammu had seen the communal virus. The situation in Delhi was also grim though the cabinet committee was regularly meeting and Gandhi had strictly asked them to take care of the Muslims. About 1,75,000 refugees had come to Kurukshetra near Ambala and were living in tents. Because of being in a senior position and looking after the refugees work, access to government officials in both the countries was most interesting part of Symonds work. He quotes British Brigadier Collyer of Pakistani army in Sailkot: “War with India would be a folly for Pakistan, his troops are becoming more belligerent. The frontier tribes, he thought, had been let into the Kashmir valley by the Pakistanis as a bridge, a substitute for subsidy which the British used to pay them.”
It is interesting that the author reflect the Pakistani side also on the issue of Kashmir problem though he refuses to take side. He quotes a Pakistani official saying that Mount Batten had influenced Radcliff over the boundary award which had not only opened a possible route between India and Kashmir but had deprived Lahore of its source of electricity. Was it Mount Batten’s dislike for Jinnah because the latter did not make him Governor General of Pakistan as India did? Unfortunately, the issue of Governor General might have come later. It is also interesting to note that until 1941 Poonch had its own Raja and after his death the Maharaja of Kashmir took control over it and imposed severe taxes on his Muslim subjects. Perhaps that was one of the reasons why people stood up against him in revolt.
Very little has been written on the possible role of Gandhi on such an important issue of Kashmir. Had his importance finished after India attained independence from the British? On December 6th 1946 when the author met Gandhi at his house he ‘insisted’, Kashmir must not be partitioned even ‘though the whole of it were to go to Pakistan’. Gandhi felt dejected with the leadership at the end but his human side has also been reflected when he took personal care of Symonds when he almost fainted after meeting with him. Gandhi did not allow him to be admitted at the government hospital but instead insisted him (Symonds) to be shifted at his (Gandhi) house and according to the author he was then able to see Gandhi’s multi faceted personality and his philosophy of life which make him a much towering personality than any other political leader of his time.
When Indian and Pakistani army were fighting with each other over Kashmir in 1947, you call it an irony or paradox, the Commanders-in-chief on both sides were British and were in frequent telephone contact with each others in kind of chess game, implying ‘ if you bomb this, we shall shell that.’ This need to be pondered whether the Kashmir issue is a British creation who never wanted it to resolve? It need to be understood in the international strategy of the former Raj whether division of Kashmir between India and Pakistan have not been a British strategy so that a peace zone is not allowed to grow in the subcontinent. Otherwise who will go to them for assistance and support if there is a peace between India and Pakistan. It is also revealed in this book that Gilgit was always under direct control of the British and that people there were fully in favor of remaining with Pakistan in the very similar way as the people of Ladakh and Jammu were firmly behind India.
Symonds who also authored, ‘The Making of Pakistan”, reflected his experience with Pakistan ruling elite. They are interesting and important for the growth of a secular politics of the subcontinent. If partition is considered as a communal flair up then it is also important for us to reveal such facets of our leadership and people that reflected their broader outlook. The author compliments Jinnah as having understood the contribution of minorities particularly Hindus in the life of Pakistan and that is why, according to him Jinnah insisted, ‘Islamic flag of the state should include a broad white band to represent minorities.’ By explaining the hitherto un-known fact of Gandhi and Jinnah, the author has done a great service for the cause of common cultural legacy of the subcontinent, which is being erased by the war-mongering elite in both the countries. One such issue was assault on minorities in both the countries. On hearing about atrocities on Sikhs and Hindus in Pakistan, Jinnah told the National Assembly: “This is not the moment to go into the origin or cause of the holocaust or to apportion blame as to which community has disgraced itself the most. It will be for historians to give the verdict.” Jinnah’s political heir Liaquat Ali khan was equally committed to the cause of minorities and upliftment of depressed communities when he said in the Pakistan’s Constituent Assembly: “ Adequate provisions shall be made for the minorities to profess and practice their religion and develop their culture and adequate provision shall be made to safeguard the legitimate interests of minorities and backward and depressed communities and said that even a non Muslim could become the head of Muslim state. However, these facts have gone out of the minds of people. Even at the government level it became difficult for Pakistan to find non-Muslim representation
in the government and other semi government autonomous bodies. J.N. Mandal was the only non-Muslim minister that time belonged to Dalit community from undivided Bengal. Unfortunately despite over several millions Scheduled castes in East Bengal, which gave 17 SC members, but none of them was given due representation. The Pakistan government had reserved 6% of its civil services posts for the Scheduled Castes but practically it did not serve any purpose. Mandal feared Dalits might not get their due respect and representation in Pakistan and left for India as he was deeply impressed with the work done by Dr B.R.Ambedkar, the father of India’s Constitution and leaders of Dalits in India, who fought for their equal rights and political representation and reservation in the government services.
In the Epilogue of the book, the author sadly remarks that Pakistan could not provide a credible second ranking leadership after Jinnah and Liaqat Ali Khan and therefore a country which was hailed for high economic growth rate in early 50s and 60s lost its path.
The author has paid rich tribute to Gandhi for his human spirit and his ability to speak truth and admit his faults. He said: “ There is no such thing as Gandhiism. I don’t claim to have originated any new principle or doctrine. I have simply tried in my own way to apply the eternal truths to our daily life and problems. The opinions, I have formed and the conclusions I have arrived at are not by any means final. I may change them tomorrow if I find better ones” And that is one reason why the author says that despite his agreement with Gandhi on many issues he has not accepted anything as Gospel truth even from Mahatma but as he says from giving Gandhi’s example that ‘ there is no shame in admitting to changing an opinion in light of new evidence’. One can only hope that the government of the India and Pakistan will forget their bitterness emanating from the past and work for the people’s wish. Hopefully, we will become countries where people’s wish remains supreme and democratic values and multiculturalism strengthen every passing day and where the rulers are not ‘entrapped by pomp and pageantry.’ It is in this way, this book serve greater purpose if bureaucrats, and those in power, admit their follies, sit together and work on the issues facing their countries rather than fanning communal passion and blaming each others for all the evils they face after independence. Time call for an introspection and action for reconciliation, only then we could say that history is a learning process for civilization and how Jinnah said that it is not up to the political leaders but to the historians to decide as what went wrong. There is a need to spread these words of our visionary political leaders to our masses who have termed them either Pro Muslim or Pro Hindu but nothing as human being. Jinnah’s concern about security of Hindus were no lesser than Nehru’s concern about Muslims in India, hence it is important for us to speak about the issues and not heighten tension on the religious bigotry and communalization process which will ultimately strengthen hate-mongers and war- mongers in our subcontinent. It is also essential that such kind of revealing books must be publicized and probably published in local languages so that more and more people are able to read them and understand the humane nature of their political leaders. More importantly it is important for the current lot of political leaders to read such books and make their vision a little broader in terms of great cultural legacy of the subcontinent.
Name of the Book: In the Margins of Independence: A Relief worker in India and Pakistan: 1942-1949
Author: Richard Symonds
Publisher: Oxford University Press, Karachi,
Pages: 144
Price: not mentioned
Published : 2001
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Ram Mandir : Attempt to reimpose brahmanical values on Indian people
Politics of Ram Temple in Ayodhya
By Vidya Bhushan Rawat
The October 30th Judgment of the Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court is being challenged by both the parties involved in the case, in the Supreme Court. Lot of things have been said and political parties are positioning themselves accordingly. Whatever be the result in the Supreme Court, a few things need to be examined and explained.
Reams of paper have been wasted in dubbing this verdict as ‘historic’. Television channels brought back the old redundant saffronites for a ‘united India’. We saw, the Maulanas and Brahmins at the helm of the affair of India again. Lord Rama is the conscious keeper of India and Advani’s heart melted as he felt exonerated for his anti-national act of destruction of the Babari mosque on December 6th, 1992. These forces were totally out of power in Uttar-Pradesh and Bihar and have been waiting for this issue to reinforce their Brahmanical vision on India. While media and political analysts may say that much water has flown in Saryu and India has moved ahead yet it is the media which revived the issue and not the people. The cut throat competition in the media was so much that for the entire day they ‘analysed’ this on various shows and all the saffron Sadhus and their favorite chant, ‘we respect court verdict, statement became the hall mark of the day. We forgot the same saffron gang shouting loudly led by both Kalyan Singh and Uma Bharati that the issue of faiths can not be decided by the court of law and that no court was bigger than the court of Lord Rama.
The decision of the court was more shocking. It ventured into an area which will open a can of worm. Was the issue before the court really ‘whether Rama was born in the same place where the mosque existed?’ ‘Should the courts entertain such petitions? How can court decide on it? What will happen if the courts are asked the same question related to Mathura and Kashi? The judges in their wisdom decided to distribute the land between three parties. Actually, it is two parties but how interestingly it is that Nirmohi Akhara is a separate party other than the ‘Hindus and Muslims’. How can they be the separate then Hindus? The issue of illegal occupation of the mosque was side tracked as how the idols of Lord Rama were placed into the mosque in November 1949. The court did not make any inquiry into it and therefore those perpetrators of a gory crime got legitimized by the courts though inadvertently.
The time when the judgment came and afterwards the saffron forces were in full flow. Ravi Shankar Prasad, speaking as lawyer appearing for ‘Hindus’ appealing to ‘Muslims’ to ‘honor’ the court verdict. Prasad should tell his party president to honor everything that the court says and mourn the planned demolition of the Babari mosque even after the then chief minister had assured the Supreme Court as well as the National Integration Council for protecting the mosque at all cost. Yet, it was demolished and created an unprecedented anarchy in India which could be compared to partition days only. The saffron forces were always interested in that as they are losing hold over the masses and need some tantrums to show us their legitimacy. Hence, this judgment can not be called a judgment in legal sense. It is more a political judgment to keep two religious groups happy and hand over the leadership of the two communities which want to move ahead from the religious thugs both the sides. India need to look ahead to the path of democracy where the voices of marginalized are continuously asking questions and seeking their space in our democratic set up. The religious rights are feeling marginalized in their own way and need to show the predominance over the masses. The media run by the capitalists on the guidance of the religious thugs is always happy to play the dirty game of ‘sarva dharma samabhava’ thus marginalizing those voices which challenge the ‘popular discourse’. Hence those who question the very legitimacy of Lord Rama as an idol of India are not only marginalized but targeted and forced to keep quiet. The Sangh Parivar has succeeded in it as almost each one of us are shouting ‘Jai Shri Rama’.
All the babas who have amassed huge properties through their crooked deals were basking on a ‘grand Ram Mandir’ to be built at Ayodhya. One does not know what does a ‘grand temple mean. And why should they need 67 hectare of land for the temple. Does India lack temples and mosques? One is amused by this focus on the temple by the top brass of the Sangh Parivar. The Hindus have lot of problems to resolve but the Sangh Parivar and its very offshoots only need the issue which involves the Muslims. The right wingers of the Muslims also want the same so that the voices of the Pasmanda remains on the margins. Though it is very clear that Muslims feel betrayed by the judgment but the fact is that their leadership too used the ‘respecting court’s verdict’ according to their fancies. We all know what happened to other issues including that in Shahbano case. Justification can always come from Mr Shahbuddin about Ayodhya but the fact is that it is the religious leaders of both the sides that are fixing the agenda and that does not hold good for a secular democracy.
In the High Court, we saw the lawyers with the red mark on their forehead. Such marks never used to be part of their fraternity. These days, a Tilak is used in such a way, as if it is ready to attack all those who do not agree with it. This show of militancy at every level has to be rejected. Indian courts must admonish those lawyers who show their religious faith outrageously in the court. It is trying to put pressure on the judiciary. Each party was saying that it respect the court verdict. Then, why are they again thinking to go to the higher court. The Muslims as an aggrieved party are taking it to Supreme Court. The Hindu Mahasabha wants the entire area to be declared as the place of Lord Rama. Every body is asking for huge temple and we all know in this wonderful land, there is no land ceiling law applicable to huge land amassed or collected in the name of temples or mosques, muthths or churches, Gurudwaras or farm houses. So, as India’s poor continue to lack land to live and cultivate, the likes of Ramdev, Advani, Imams will have thousands of acres to cultivate their gods and goddesses. The state is a party to it. The media knowingly handing the entire issue to these gangs who want this issue to rise so that they can have their TRPs.
Till the 30th, we all were debating the issue of land rights, tribal rights, issue of caste based census and many more things but from that day, all the dead woods are back to business. The sarva-dharm champions are back with the candle lights. It is nothing but trying to bring back the Brahman cal supremacy in Indian life. One has to understand the entire game of Ayodhya and its Ram temple. The brahmanical forces know equally well that the Muslim religious lunatics too would not like to ‘accept’ ‘defeat’. Both need to feed each other and hence the issue will continue. These Babas have earned millions of rupees and now they want entry to the Parliament and save their illegally grabbed money.
While I fully endorse the view that rule of the law has to prevail but what is rule of the law in this country. It is brahmanical values. That RSS and other Hindu organizations with the help of other parties have been able to again put forward their own castiest agenda on the country and all other issues are out. One friend wrote in the face book that there is no OBC-Dalit priests in Ayodhya. Unfortunately, he is wrong. OBCs are the foot soldiers of the Hindutva brigade and the day they understand it, it would be better. I can provide many OBC babas in Ayodhya living in their Akhadas and part of brahmanical value system. They have to understand that Advani’s Rath yatra started to eliminate the Mandal effect that time and it failed as the Mandal forces were very strong enough but in that entire process the Sangh Parivar got Mandalised and co-opted the shudras. This time the target is the caste census issue. Advani and congress both do not want census on the basis of caste and want the issue to get diluted. They have foot soldiers like Ram Dev and others who are here to repose our faith in those brahmanical values that degraded the Bahujan masses of the country. This is dangerous. These ‘ so-called’ non Hindutva Babas also want the same domination in Ayodhya. None of them talks about the annihilation of Buddhist culture from entire Avadh region. We must ask this question. I had posed this question to a Swami in Ayodhya during an interview and he proudly proclaimed that we threw the Buddhists away. He clearly admitted that Ayodhya was a Buddhist place named as Saket and that we threw them away. Even today, Ayodhya has a number of places which can easily be termed as Buddhist places. Our Buddhist friends actually could not do their home work well or may be in the din of Hindu Muslim noise, the voices of Buddhists and Dalits were ignored. I have visited number of temples in Ayodhya which I can say are Buddhists particularly some of their statues but have been converted into Hindu Gods.
The Supreme Court must take all issue into one. It must punish those who perpetrated the ghastly crime of dismantling the mosque on December 6th, 1992. It must also punish those who put the idols in the mosque. The court also must seek clarification from the Archaeological Survey of India. It said during the Setu Samudram Finding that there is nothing as such Ramsetu in Rameshwaram region and that all that was fictitious. How can the same department say that there were signs of the birth of Lord Rama in Ayodhya. There could have been a temple but can any one prove that Lord Rama was born there. Can court was capable enough to decide about this matter. The Supreme Court must hear this petition with a longer bench and give a verdict so that tomorrow such issues do not come up. The verdict should not be given in isolation. The verdict must involve all those issues related to Ayodhya and demolition of Babari Mosque. The courts must aske the government as what has it done to the promise made by the then Prime Minister Narsimha Rao to the nation that a mosque would be rebuild there?
Can we undo the injustice of history? And if yes, then how. If Babari Masjid was the symbol of victory of aliens then what was Rama’s victory. Can you undo the Muslim contribution to India and its four hundred old histories? Can we demolish Taj Majal, Red Fort, Qutub Minar and much beautiful structure which were made by the Mughal Kings? Will we not listen to Mohammad Rafi and Bagum Akkthar simply because they were Muslims? Buddhists and Dalits have beliefs that Ayodhya was Saket and that many temples and idols there have been demolished by the Hindus and converted them to Hidu Gods and Goddesses. Things were explained to me by several Buddhist friends and I did record events there. But Buddhists are not a party. History has enough evidences that a large number of temples are actually built on the edifice of Buddhist structure. What should the Buddhist do? Should they also start undoing the historical wrong and if yes, then how?
Undoing the history could prove expensive to the Hindutva forces. How will the Dalits and Shudra undo the history? Should they start thrashing these Aryan forces? In democracy, it is number that matter. The numbers are with the Dalit, Shudras, Adivasis and other such people oppressed by the brahmanical tyranny in India. If they all unite and start undoing everything Hindu dharma will collapse as it is based on a fad of caste hierarchy. It is time for these religious lunatics to come to senses and leave their false egos aside and work for an equitable and united India. Let them work for the eradication of untouchability. Let them work against dowry system. No, those who started the practice can not go against it.
The courts have to come clear on these issues. The faith of the so-called majority community can not be the rule of law in the democracy. But unfortunately that is happening. Our political parties, intellectuals have conspired against India’s indigenous people. One side they are being thrown away from their homes in the name of ‘development’ and ‘beautification’ of our cities and towns, the other side, they are being fetched by these religious thugs through cultural annihilation. Imposition of Rama culture by mass media on India people is actually an attempt on annihilation of the indigenous culture of India. The new history is being written by the Dalits, Adivasis, Shudras by questioning the relevance of these patriarchical gods and their brahmanical masters. Ambedkar questioned it long back, Periyar moved against, Phule exposed them. The Hindus want to build a Ram temple while the Muslims want to build a mosque there. The best option for the oppressed communities is to read more ‘Sachchi Ramayana’ and ‘Riddles of Hinduism’ by Periyar and Ambedkar respectively so that they can understand the conspiracy of these classes against oppressed Bahujan masses of India. Remember, the Hindutva is not against Muslims, it can not actually do anything against them, and its target is to curtail the growing assertion of the Dalits, Shudra and Adivasis in the country. We must not keep quiet. We can not watch the game from outside which affects us. Speak up for human rights and humanist values. Let us send these hate mongers to their den only. Let us not allow them to lead our polity. Let us be careful as the Hindutva were first to indulge in social engineering work after Mandal. The war for supremacy of Brahmanism has begun as despite political defeats they are still active, aggressive and manipulative as they run their agenda through culture. It is time to combat it with our counter culture which is more humane, more rational and more civilized.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Public verses Personal : issues of ethics in our political life
Ethics and morality in public life: need for cultural revolution in India
By Vidya Bhushan Rawat
My last article evoked sharp reactions as some felt that personal matters should remain personal and we should discuss the professional issues of an individual and should not indulge in peeping into the personal affairs of people. I would like to reiterate that by talking about double standards in our life, I am not poking my nose in the personal affairs of individuals. In fact, in a country where privacy is an issue we all love to hate and all of us want to peep into the bed rooms of people, the article written by me had in no way any connotation to that. My only meaning was that the principals which we talk in public must be the same at home. It does not mean that we can not educate our children and can not send them to better schools. It does not mean that if our children work contrary to our beliefs then our ‘upbringing’ to them was wrong. The choice of individuals and freedom to dissent is an important point of modern democratic value system and not historical traditional culture values which we romanticize. It means that those supporting primitive values of traditional hierarchies, parents are responsible for their children. For them, our karmas are responsible for our present being. Hence, if we believe in that principal of Karma, then it is difficult for us to rationalize our argument. Hence, there is no issue whether our children go to foreign universities or not. It only means that when we send our wards to private schools and English medium schools then in our public opinion we can also feel that every one wants to do that and that learning English is the desire of our students. It means that all of us want best educational institutions whether by government or foreigners. It means that any foreign link up is not that bad in practice. It only means that we all know what is good and bad for us and our society and that society also knows who is doing good or bad for them. So let the people decide. We can not be guide to everything. We can only put issues in front of them and seek their support.
A friend wrote to me, ‘What will happen if our children go US and UK for study? Should we stop criticizing them? Actually, that is the dilemma of many as problem is not with their children going to UK and US. Problem is when you feel that every foreign connection is bad. Problem is when we demean all those who raise the issue at international level or national level. Problem is when we speak on behalf of communities and tell them not to speak to some one since he or she had ‘foreign links’. I do not know what those links are and can any one do anything against communities. Why we do not tell people to judge the people on the basis of their work and not on the basis of their birth, their linkages, their being civil society or this ism or that ism. How will our children go there when their parents spit venom in the ground against ‘foreign power’? Enjoying Europe and America means, you enjoy their democracy. You enjoy their freedom and the diversity and independence they provide to you. I am not here to go and mop every individual Marxist or Maoist who claims the US, UK civilization as imperialist one and then send their children to these countries. Better they can send their children to former Soviet countries, to Venezuela or Bolivia and learn a few things about ‘communist’ democracy in these countries.
Also, why do we send our children to Europe and America? Certainly, we all go there for better education and greater future prospectus. That means, somewhere we want them to earn better than others. Then why we cry so much against their societies. Of course, we can always speak against human rights violation there and their government interfering in the internal affair of other countries. But to condemn everything there and then trying to be part of it is dishonesty. If earning good and trying to get a good life is better for your child, how can that be bad for a tribal or Dalits? When you can negotiate with your enemies what is wrong if the local tribal try to negotiate with powerful at local level to get his things done. Who are we to tell them that everything is bad? So, those followers of ‘revolutionaries’ must first understand that for a healthy society we need healthy dissent and accept diverse view point.
We are not discussing here the personal lives of people. We know every individual has a right to life and live. I took the debate to a different level where Ambedkar started with cultural change. I say, we need Cultural Revolution. When I speak of it, it does not mean, we are deciding about every individual. In fact, we support rights of every individual to decide about her self.
In his response, Vikas Mogha mentioned about Baba Saheb Ambedkar’s marriage to Mrs Savita Ambedkar. I again said that it was their personal decision and we must respect that. Both of them are not alive here to answer our questions but I have heard utterly negative comments about Dr Savita Ambedkar. These comments do not do justice to the personality of Dr Ambedkar. We must leave it to him whether it was good or bad, it was not our concern. Lots of things were written against her but at the end of the day being a woman she had to face double the calumny.
We must target all those, national or international corporate or individuals and their bid to control our resources and destroy our water, forest and environment. But in that case it is the issue of environment which is more important and if that is hurt even by a domestic company then too we must speak loudly and vociferously. Our criticism must be based on facts and not on rhetoric. Long back, I wrote we all need international cooperation and linkages with people, individuals. In this era, can we live in isolation? So, when we talk about imperialism, it has different meaning. But our leaders will speak differently. On everything they will start international conspiracy. I want to know what kind of ‘international conspiracy’ has kept Mushahars, Kols, Balmikis, Mehtars, and other dalits and tribal communities subjugated for centuries. They all are victim of our Hindu civilization. Most of the conspiracy theorists rarely speak against the internal colonization. Yes, when we speak so loudly against the international imperialism then we must speak at the same length against internal imperialism. That is what we call Hindu Imperialism in India. But right from Marxists, to Maoists to Gandhians, none talked about it. Except for the fact that Ambedkar, Phule, Periyar etc talked about it but they are not our mainstream leaders. They are termed as leaders of ‘subalterns’.
Ambedkar realized the change in the life style when he went to US. There he could meet any one and could shake hand with all which was not possible in India. He realized the meaning of democracy and equality there while Gandhi was finding greatness in our village and primitive cultural value system.
When 74 policemen were killed in Chhatishgarh many sympathizers rejoiced. When the four policemen were abducted in Bihar, the sympathizers wanted Bihar government to release the leaders. Some said the other day that politics is difficult thing today and hence we need friends like Maoists to fight against caste and communal forces. So, you club together caste forces with the Hindutva gangs and rejoice your own failures. Did any one of them ever launch anti caste movement. If yes, then what was the result? And why was it stopped?
Now, see the background of the policemen killed in killed in ambush in Chhatishgarh. Most of them belonged to Dalits, tribal and backward communities, basically sons of our farmers and workers. Who were the people abducted in Bihar. Again the same communities including Muslims were targeted. So, what is the benefit of killing them? No, they are state agents, say our sympathizers. They are fighting on being paid by government and they are paid handsomely when they die, remarks some of them shamelessly.
And who are the sympathizers? Well, they too get much bigger salaries than the poor policemen fighting with the age old 303 rifles. Most of them can be an ideologue inside the campus of JNU, Delhi University or other universities. Some might be living in the accommodation provided by the government in posh central or New Delhi regions, condemning the state yet being part of it. Nothing happen. If a policemen revolt in Chhatishgarh against the operation green hunt, he would lose his job but our respected elderly intellectuals have both the tags at their whims and fancies. They can be intellectuals, revolutionaries and can cry against any one at free of cost. After all, the universities do not even ask them as how many days they were absent or what is the courses they finished. Universities have become political battle ground and safer locations for the revolutionaries. In handsome salaries you are everything. You do not need to go out. You will be invited. You are tagged as intellectual and if you are a public person, then you are a ‘leader’ also. And most importantly you can shout loudly that you do not get any funds. You are not saleable. You can shout you are not NGO. You do not get funds for your revolution. Yes, you get much more than an ordinary NGO gets in all. Yes, you do not get for revolution but your salaries are for your students and your teachings. That is where we have double standards. We misuse our offices and become the champions. It is the politics of powerful of those who have money and resources to control our social movements in the guise of being independent.
This trend was started many years ago in Bengal where developing a civil society outside the CPM’s domain was difficult. To demonize the civil society you needed some ‘intellectuals’ who can cry ‘international’ ‘conspiracy’ as if NGOs are that powerful which can dislodge the CPM. After all, a government will be dislodged by the political parties only. Soon, this ‘progressive’ terminology started every where when the Dalits and other marginalized sections of society also started building up their organizations. ‘You get funds from abroad’, they would charge them. Yes, they do not get billions of dollars for building up a University or High way. One need to see their conditions in which a social activist survive life long yet when those living in glass houses throw stones at him it pains. This has become fashionable now. Rather than speaking to a person about his work, his perceptions and his actions, we are more interested in what he or she is earning and where from.
In India, you can speak against the state and be a star as nothing will happen as bigger than the state we have a brahmanical domination in each walk of our life from Gandhian brand to Maoism to socialism that speaking against state is easier. The extra powerful element of the state is Brahmanism and it is safe with the Swamis and Sanyasis of our time. None of them is ready to wage a war against the brahmanical system. Yes, all of them want to join hand to curtail the ‘caste’ forces. So, Naxal will help them curtail the rise of caste forces. Perhaps that is the reason why our ‘nationalists’ upper caste lead social movements have so much concern for their brothers in the forest. So what is common between RSS and Naxals. It is the caste assertion of the down trodden that hurt both of them and their supporters.
They say that Naxals are revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh who got nothing. How do you club them with Bhagat Singh whose vision for a casteless society has rarely got the attentions of these so-called revolutionaries? Do they know that Bhagat Singh never believed in such criminal violence which our friends are indulging? Even in the Lahore bomb case in which he got death sentence, Bhagat Singh and his friends could have killed an entire leadership but that was never their intention. I am sure; Bhagat Singh today would have fought a bigger battle against both the Indian imperialism as well as global imperialism. And most importantly, Bhagat Singh had the guts to challenge the religious practice at home. So he believed that to fight against orthodoxy and conservatism one has to be clean in his personal self and then fight. Legendary M.N.Roy analyzed in his book ‘Our Task in India’ about the inability of Indians to bring revolution. He said that since the proletariats in India are unable to liberate ourselves from reactionary social outlook and somewhere we are influenced by ‘religion, spiritualism and Gandhism’.
By calling for a cultural revolution, one is not seeking any religious morality to curtail individual freedom but strengthen that. In fact, we want India to change for better and that change is not possible with out a cultural change which can replace the tainted Brahmanical value system that never consider human being as equal and which believe in two many facets of life, thus destroying the lives of millions through cultural subjugation and deep rooted caste and gender prejudices.
By Vidya Bhushan Rawat
My last article evoked sharp reactions as some felt that personal matters should remain personal and we should discuss the professional issues of an individual and should not indulge in peeping into the personal affairs of people. I would like to reiterate that by talking about double standards in our life, I am not poking my nose in the personal affairs of individuals. In fact, in a country where privacy is an issue we all love to hate and all of us want to peep into the bed rooms of people, the article written by me had in no way any connotation to that. My only meaning was that the principals which we talk in public must be the same at home. It does not mean that we can not educate our children and can not send them to better schools. It does not mean that if our children work contrary to our beliefs then our ‘upbringing’ to them was wrong. The choice of individuals and freedom to dissent is an important point of modern democratic value system and not historical traditional culture values which we romanticize. It means that those supporting primitive values of traditional hierarchies, parents are responsible for their children. For them, our karmas are responsible for our present being. Hence, if we believe in that principal of Karma, then it is difficult for us to rationalize our argument. Hence, there is no issue whether our children go to foreign universities or not. It only means that when we send our wards to private schools and English medium schools then in our public opinion we can also feel that every one wants to do that and that learning English is the desire of our students. It means that all of us want best educational institutions whether by government or foreigners. It means that any foreign link up is not that bad in practice. It only means that we all know what is good and bad for us and our society and that society also knows who is doing good or bad for them. So let the people decide. We can not be guide to everything. We can only put issues in front of them and seek their support.
A friend wrote to me, ‘What will happen if our children go US and UK for study? Should we stop criticizing them? Actually, that is the dilemma of many as problem is not with their children going to UK and US. Problem is when you feel that every foreign connection is bad. Problem is when we demean all those who raise the issue at international level or national level. Problem is when we speak on behalf of communities and tell them not to speak to some one since he or she had ‘foreign links’. I do not know what those links are and can any one do anything against communities. Why we do not tell people to judge the people on the basis of their work and not on the basis of their birth, their linkages, their being civil society or this ism or that ism. How will our children go there when their parents spit venom in the ground against ‘foreign power’? Enjoying Europe and America means, you enjoy their democracy. You enjoy their freedom and the diversity and independence they provide to you. I am not here to go and mop every individual Marxist or Maoist who claims the US, UK civilization as imperialist one and then send their children to these countries. Better they can send their children to former Soviet countries, to Venezuela or Bolivia and learn a few things about ‘communist’ democracy in these countries.
Also, why do we send our children to Europe and America? Certainly, we all go there for better education and greater future prospectus. That means, somewhere we want them to earn better than others. Then why we cry so much against their societies. Of course, we can always speak against human rights violation there and their government interfering in the internal affair of other countries. But to condemn everything there and then trying to be part of it is dishonesty. If earning good and trying to get a good life is better for your child, how can that be bad for a tribal or Dalits? When you can negotiate with your enemies what is wrong if the local tribal try to negotiate with powerful at local level to get his things done. Who are we to tell them that everything is bad? So, those followers of ‘revolutionaries’ must first understand that for a healthy society we need healthy dissent and accept diverse view point.
We are not discussing here the personal lives of people. We know every individual has a right to life and live. I took the debate to a different level where Ambedkar started with cultural change. I say, we need Cultural Revolution. When I speak of it, it does not mean, we are deciding about every individual. In fact, we support rights of every individual to decide about her self.
In his response, Vikas Mogha mentioned about Baba Saheb Ambedkar’s marriage to Mrs Savita Ambedkar. I again said that it was their personal decision and we must respect that. Both of them are not alive here to answer our questions but I have heard utterly negative comments about Dr Savita Ambedkar. These comments do not do justice to the personality of Dr Ambedkar. We must leave it to him whether it was good or bad, it was not our concern. Lots of things were written against her but at the end of the day being a woman she had to face double the calumny.
We must target all those, national or international corporate or individuals and their bid to control our resources and destroy our water, forest and environment. But in that case it is the issue of environment which is more important and if that is hurt even by a domestic company then too we must speak loudly and vociferously. Our criticism must be based on facts and not on rhetoric. Long back, I wrote we all need international cooperation and linkages with people, individuals. In this era, can we live in isolation? So, when we talk about imperialism, it has different meaning. But our leaders will speak differently. On everything they will start international conspiracy. I want to know what kind of ‘international conspiracy’ has kept Mushahars, Kols, Balmikis, Mehtars, and other dalits and tribal communities subjugated for centuries. They all are victim of our Hindu civilization. Most of the conspiracy theorists rarely speak against the internal colonization. Yes, when we speak so loudly against the international imperialism then we must speak at the same length against internal imperialism. That is what we call Hindu Imperialism in India. But right from Marxists, to Maoists to Gandhians, none talked about it. Except for the fact that Ambedkar, Phule, Periyar etc talked about it but they are not our mainstream leaders. They are termed as leaders of ‘subalterns’.
Ambedkar realized the change in the life style when he went to US. There he could meet any one and could shake hand with all which was not possible in India. He realized the meaning of democracy and equality there while Gandhi was finding greatness in our village and primitive cultural value system.
When 74 policemen were killed in Chhatishgarh many sympathizers rejoiced. When the four policemen were abducted in Bihar, the sympathizers wanted Bihar government to release the leaders. Some said the other day that politics is difficult thing today and hence we need friends like Maoists to fight against caste and communal forces. So, you club together caste forces with the Hindutva gangs and rejoice your own failures. Did any one of them ever launch anti caste movement. If yes, then what was the result? And why was it stopped?
Now, see the background of the policemen killed in killed in ambush in Chhatishgarh. Most of them belonged to Dalits, tribal and backward communities, basically sons of our farmers and workers. Who were the people abducted in Bihar. Again the same communities including Muslims were targeted. So, what is the benefit of killing them? No, they are state agents, say our sympathizers. They are fighting on being paid by government and they are paid handsomely when they die, remarks some of them shamelessly.
And who are the sympathizers? Well, they too get much bigger salaries than the poor policemen fighting with the age old 303 rifles. Most of them can be an ideologue inside the campus of JNU, Delhi University or other universities. Some might be living in the accommodation provided by the government in posh central or New Delhi regions, condemning the state yet being part of it. Nothing happen. If a policemen revolt in Chhatishgarh against the operation green hunt, he would lose his job but our respected elderly intellectuals have both the tags at their whims and fancies. They can be intellectuals, revolutionaries and can cry against any one at free of cost. After all, the universities do not even ask them as how many days they were absent or what is the courses they finished. Universities have become political battle ground and safer locations for the revolutionaries. In handsome salaries you are everything. You do not need to go out. You will be invited. You are tagged as intellectual and if you are a public person, then you are a ‘leader’ also. And most importantly you can shout loudly that you do not get any funds. You are not saleable. You can shout you are not NGO. You do not get funds for your revolution. Yes, you get much more than an ordinary NGO gets in all. Yes, you do not get for revolution but your salaries are for your students and your teachings. That is where we have double standards. We misuse our offices and become the champions. It is the politics of powerful of those who have money and resources to control our social movements in the guise of being independent.
This trend was started many years ago in Bengal where developing a civil society outside the CPM’s domain was difficult. To demonize the civil society you needed some ‘intellectuals’ who can cry ‘international’ ‘conspiracy’ as if NGOs are that powerful which can dislodge the CPM. After all, a government will be dislodged by the political parties only. Soon, this ‘progressive’ terminology started every where when the Dalits and other marginalized sections of society also started building up their organizations. ‘You get funds from abroad’, they would charge them. Yes, they do not get billions of dollars for building up a University or High way. One need to see their conditions in which a social activist survive life long yet when those living in glass houses throw stones at him it pains. This has become fashionable now. Rather than speaking to a person about his work, his perceptions and his actions, we are more interested in what he or she is earning and where from.
In India, you can speak against the state and be a star as nothing will happen as bigger than the state we have a brahmanical domination in each walk of our life from Gandhian brand to Maoism to socialism that speaking against state is easier. The extra powerful element of the state is Brahmanism and it is safe with the Swamis and Sanyasis of our time. None of them is ready to wage a war against the brahmanical system. Yes, all of them want to join hand to curtail the ‘caste’ forces. So, Naxal will help them curtail the rise of caste forces. Perhaps that is the reason why our ‘nationalists’ upper caste lead social movements have so much concern for their brothers in the forest. So what is common between RSS and Naxals. It is the caste assertion of the down trodden that hurt both of them and their supporters.
They say that Naxals are revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh who got nothing. How do you club them with Bhagat Singh whose vision for a casteless society has rarely got the attentions of these so-called revolutionaries? Do they know that Bhagat Singh never believed in such criminal violence which our friends are indulging? Even in the Lahore bomb case in which he got death sentence, Bhagat Singh and his friends could have killed an entire leadership but that was never their intention. I am sure; Bhagat Singh today would have fought a bigger battle against both the Indian imperialism as well as global imperialism. And most importantly, Bhagat Singh had the guts to challenge the religious practice at home. So he believed that to fight against orthodoxy and conservatism one has to be clean in his personal self and then fight. Legendary M.N.Roy analyzed in his book ‘Our Task in India’ about the inability of Indians to bring revolution. He said that since the proletariats in India are unable to liberate ourselves from reactionary social outlook and somewhere we are influenced by ‘religion, spiritualism and Gandhism’.
By calling for a cultural revolution, one is not seeking any religious morality to curtail individual freedom but strengthen that. In fact, we want India to change for better and that change is not possible with out a cultural change which can replace the tainted Brahmanical value system that never consider human being as equal and which believe in two many facets of life, thus destroying the lives of millions through cultural subjugation and deep rooted caste and gender prejudices.
Wednesday, September 08, 2010
Double Standards of life hamper the growth of social movements
Double Standards of Life hurt our social movements more than anything else
By Vidya Bhushan Rawat
At a public meeting in Uttar-Pradesh recently where I was one of the speakers, I found that speakers after speakers loudly and radically talking about the Gods and Goddesses and how they had suffocated us, deprived us and killed our spirit. Songs were played and people clapped whenever any reference to any particular god was being made. I was quite disgusted at all this as those of us who have been in the Ambedkarite movement for long know that somewhere we have developed this infatuation for Manusmriti and various gods and simply have lost new ideas and agendas.
I know it is not unusual for hitting on gods and goddesses and then escaping from the bigger problem of how we have to change personally. We can fight a lot with others and abuse others but is not there a need to change our self internally. Crying against the Hindu gods means that we are still interested in negotiating with them in being part of that fraternity which denied people justice and dignity. Dr Ambedkar tried his best in the 1930s when he led various protest movements only to realize it later that there is no benefit in crying loudly as it will only hamper our energy. It is better to chart your own path which he clearly felt Buddhism would provide to all of us. And afterwards, he did not take much interest in what the Hindus were doing and preaching. His bigger concern was how can Dalits be liberated and what could be the right path for the community. And he started thinking on it. He made a clarion call that though ‘ I was a born Hindu, which was not in my hands but I would not die as a Hindu’. The clear meaning of this sentence was that he decided to do what he could do.
Ambedkar, Phule, Periyar and all others who we consider our icons actually led from their personal examples. That is why despite all differences, people used to respect them for their high level of integrity. When Periyar married to Maniamma at the fag end of his life, many of his colleagues were not happy but given his radical views he did not care for those who thought he was a pervert. His decision was entirely his own even at the cost of a possible negative public opinion yet that did not change him. He did not hide anything in public life and never felt apologetic about his wedding.
What makes the difference between the current political class and the great icons of yesteryears? What keep them apart from others and people still love and revere them. If we analyze each one of them we will find that the biggest aspect in their life was their personal integrity. What they preached they practiced. Today, a number of our leaders whether they are politicians or belong to another generations of ‘social activists’ have different faces at different places. At home they are following the same pattern to keep their family alive while outside the home challenging those very facets. How is it possible? Is not that practicing a double standard?
Well, one of my dear friends always argues with me not to bring personal matters into public life. My argument was about our political class which preaches one ideology at the gate and other inside their homes must be exposed and it has resulted in failures of our movements. Our families have become biggest scandals to stop liberation of people. She rightly says that parents should not be blamed for the fault of their children. I agree to that point. When I say about personal integrity, that does not mean that every parent should decide everything about their children or do away with it. If we are ideologically clear, that ideological practice should be reflected in our family also. That is the root of our argument. At least, till 18 years of age, your children will follow your dictates. This article does not mean that our children should be hold responsible for our deeds or parents should face punishment for their children’s misdeeds. It is about ethics in public and private behavior and I am trying to explore where we fail.
Two great leaders from Uttar-Pradesh, late Chaudhury Charan Singh and now Mulayam Singh Yadav have a great fan following among the farmers. Both of them claimed to be secular and supported the cause of poor and farmers. And both were against modern technology. Charan Singh’s party’s manifesto condemned the technological advances in agriculture. Charan Singh’s son Ajit Singh got his education in an American University and learnt computer that time when the very usage of IT was never known. Now Charan Singh who preached people against English education and technology send his own son to US. Ajit Singh could not have done without his father’s support? Ofcouse, Charan Singh could easily say that what Ajit Singh does is his own concern, but can any one deny the fact that what will be Ajit Singh minus Charan Singh. If he were not Charan’s son, would any body vote for him? Though we respect our leaders yet we normally never question their double standards in life.
Similar is the case of Mr Mulayam Singh Yadav, who claimed to be following Dr Ram Manohar Lohia’s path. Mulayam officially abhorred English and warned that all the signboards of English languages will be blackened in Uttar-Pradesh. He responded to mails in Hindi only. But look the irony, Yadav’s son Akhilesh went to best educational institutions in the world. Can it be called personal matter of Mr Yadav. If he can think that English education is good for his son then why he preach it is bad for farmers and poor. If English could help his son why and how would it be detrimental for others. It is ‘thankfully’ to Mulayam’s education policy that the students of Uttar-Pradesh remain far behind than their counter parts in other parts of the country.
This double standard is every where particularly those who claiming to represent the ‘poor’. We know Jyoti Ba Phule, who practiced first and then preached. Educating his wife before going to others was a revolutionary work. They did not care what other would say about it. Bhagat Singh wrote of atheism and had courage to shorten his hair against the wishes of his father; Baba Saheb embraced Buddhism before preaching to embrace it. But the double standards are many in today’s life as I have personally seen those preaching Marxism, Maoism to the poor tribal, enjoying the best corporate life. Those abuse the west; enjoy the Western drink and courtesy. How can we say that personal life is different than your ideological life?
The point I am referring is that the right wing extremism or left wing extremism have no love for differences of opinion. That is why, when they pretend to lead from the front, the best example should from their personal lives. If a multinational is bad for tribal then it should be bad for the family members also. That is why we see the contrast in the personal lives of those who leads these social movements. Their children enjoy the best of the west while their ‘client’ the poor of India are fed on hot argument of ‘nationalism’ and ‘culture’. When, I points out the corporate background, the religious back ground of some of the sympathizers, we are told that ‘they are greater than those who started with poverty and have become rich’ at the cost of the people. Some of them are simply targeting the Dalit leadership which has some how come up and can claim to be equally corrupt like others. My problem is not whether they have declassed themselves or not the fact is that most of them have only been in the movement to ‘lead’ and not to sit and guide.
The problem is not what one earns how much or not. Despite all differences with ‘spiritual Gandhi’, one can not ignore the integrity of Gandhi as he publicly disowned his son Hari Das Gandhi when he felt that he was violating basic principles of his life which he believed in. Baba Saheb Ambedkar was a man of complete dedication and probity in personal life and hence none could even blame him today that he had double standards in life. It is not that he preached something different to people and practiced differently.
Many Ambedkarite today speak loudly in public and start with thrashing the Gods and Goddesses that never existed. I just tell them please stop this and start at home. The best way to get rid of this menace of God is what Baba Saheb Ambedkar preached you. If you have got a new way of life then do not worry why others are in that dirty pool. Your duty is to inform people and the best practice to get rid of them is from our very personal life. That is why in his personal life too Baba Saheb Ambedkar was perhaps the cleanest person who could defend anything and any action that he did in his life. He had valid arguments for his actions and based on those principals of life he grew. He was not a politician who could justify things for his personal gains. There was rarely anything personal for him. The amount of money that he invested to educate people, the educational institutions that he started are visible in the form a wider movement among the masses in various parts of the country. The cultural changes are also visible in our life that he strived was lead by him in his personal life. He did not preach us what he did not practice.
That is why he succeeded. The silent revolution in India that we have seen in Maharastra and elsewhere in India is actually brought by those who believed in Ambedkar’s vision of life. And the result is that more than anything that the Maoists and Marxists could bring, the Ambedkarite vision was of changing yourself and adopting the new vision of life, which is more democratic, more egalitarian and more respectful towards dissent. Today, the neo Buddhists are in all walks of life. In private sector, in sports, in industries, in entrepreneurship, at the music concerts, as the cultural change is visible among them. Others have not come up because they are still fighting the very battle of dignity with in those paradigms where things will not change. A cultural renaissance is needed to Change our self rather than wasting our energy on something that is fictitious and job of a perverse mind. That is where I appealed to all the right thinking persons to take care of their own home first and then preach the others. But some of our friends took it in a different way. They say, ‘It is absolutely wrong to bring personal matter into public’. I said there is nothing personal here but if you call yourself an Ambedkarite or Marxist or even a Maoist or an atheist then God should always be fearful of you rather than you fearing of ‘him’. You can not celebrate your godly traits, dine with them and say it is the freedom of your wife. These are not the issues of freedom but issues of our cultural subjugation. You can not keep it under the wrap that I am an Ambedkarite but I defend my wife’s right to wear a Mangalsutra and sport a sindoor over her head. You can not be a Marxist or an atheist at the same time playing an obedient husband of your wife on a ‘Karwachowth day’ and celebrating all those festivals that actually deny women a right to equality.
We can respect divergent view points. As I said at home our children may be different but we take care of them. At least some of the basic ideas they take from us. We do not say that they should do everything what we tell them. But definitely they should know what we do and they should have their view. Can our children disown us if they disagree our view points? Can we disown our children if our views are quite contrary to them? For example some Ambedkarite fathers actually disliked their children’s marriage to the upper caste girls. But that is an individual choice and must be respected. But what happened if the girl or the boy does not agree to father’s choice and start propagating the ideology of hatred just opposed to what we have believed. What should be the response? Should it just be two differences of opinion or should it be openly discarded and disowned? Moral questions are basically on these lines. You can always have differences of opinions as long as that believe in basic human liberty and democratic values, does not spread racial hatred and filth.
Two years back, I was in Tirupathi for a seminar on Ambedkarism being organized by a University there. In the evening, I got two veteran Ambedkarites from Delhi. One came along with his wife and wanted to find whether I was interested to visit Tirupathi Devasthanam in the morning as his wife came because of it. I flatly refused saying that I would rather sleep in the morning than going to a place which is epicenter of discrimination based on caste, gender and pocket. These things happen in our life. Number of friends married outside their castes. Not just with in the Dalits but mostly among the Brahmins and upper castes yet they face dilemma of revealing the facts. Question is one is not asking whether they should reveal who they married or not. Question is if you believe that inter caste marriage could be good for you then why you say it is bad for others. I speak against those who say that it is not good for others.
Unlike their western counterparts, Indian society is still patriarchical and completely male dominated. Here parents influence on children is always visible. Well, writing this article does not mean every child should become a Xerox copy of his parents and should not have the freedom. It also does not mean, every parent should kill their child if they marry outside their clan and community. As a humanist, I believe in that freedom, what I am writing about those who do not want to give this freedom to people who they treat as ‘subject’, and give them different prescription. My belief is that as a human being what I promote in the public should hold true to my family and personal matters. Social movements will only grow positively and effectively otherwise they will remain instant protest for some needs being exploited by the powerful ‘nationalist’ elite claiming to ‘represent’ the marginalized and giving all those prescription to Dalits and tribals which had become redundant for their own personal lives. Once the leadership has a feel of the pulse of the people, they will not take their fight to endless struggle till the ‘whole’ world changes, while living in their comfortable air conditioned halls. It is time to wake up for every individual to think well and not to surrender their right to any one else. The biggest change in the world comes through changing oneself. Ambedkar did it. We need to follow his words of advice and complete the revolution.
By Vidya Bhushan Rawat
At a public meeting in Uttar-Pradesh recently where I was one of the speakers, I found that speakers after speakers loudly and radically talking about the Gods and Goddesses and how they had suffocated us, deprived us and killed our spirit. Songs were played and people clapped whenever any reference to any particular god was being made. I was quite disgusted at all this as those of us who have been in the Ambedkarite movement for long know that somewhere we have developed this infatuation for Manusmriti and various gods and simply have lost new ideas and agendas.
I know it is not unusual for hitting on gods and goddesses and then escaping from the bigger problem of how we have to change personally. We can fight a lot with others and abuse others but is not there a need to change our self internally. Crying against the Hindu gods means that we are still interested in negotiating with them in being part of that fraternity which denied people justice and dignity. Dr Ambedkar tried his best in the 1930s when he led various protest movements only to realize it later that there is no benefit in crying loudly as it will only hamper our energy. It is better to chart your own path which he clearly felt Buddhism would provide to all of us. And afterwards, he did not take much interest in what the Hindus were doing and preaching. His bigger concern was how can Dalits be liberated and what could be the right path for the community. And he started thinking on it. He made a clarion call that though ‘ I was a born Hindu, which was not in my hands but I would not die as a Hindu’. The clear meaning of this sentence was that he decided to do what he could do.
Ambedkar, Phule, Periyar and all others who we consider our icons actually led from their personal examples. That is why despite all differences, people used to respect them for their high level of integrity. When Periyar married to Maniamma at the fag end of his life, many of his colleagues were not happy but given his radical views he did not care for those who thought he was a pervert. His decision was entirely his own even at the cost of a possible negative public opinion yet that did not change him. He did not hide anything in public life and never felt apologetic about his wedding.
What makes the difference between the current political class and the great icons of yesteryears? What keep them apart from others and people still love and revere them. If we analyze each one of them we will find that the biggest aspect in their life was their personal integrity. What they preached they practiced. Today, a number of our leaders whether they are politicians or belong to another generations of ‘social activists’ have different faces at different places. At home they are following the same pattern to keep their family alive while outside the home challenging those very facets. How is it possible? Is not that practicing a double standard?
Well, one of my dear friends always argues with me not to bring personal matters into public life. My argument was about our political class which preaches one ideology at the gate and other inside their homes must be exposed and it has resulted in failures of our movements. Our families have become biggest scandals to stop liberation of people. She rightly says that parents should not be blamed for the fault of their children. I agree to that point. When I say about personal integrity, that does not mean that every parent should decide everything about their children or do away with it. If we are ideologically clear, that ideological practice should be reflected in our family also. That is the root of our argument. At least, till 18 years of age, your children will follow your dictates. This article does not mean that our children should be hold responsible for our deeds or parents should face punishment for their children’s misdeeds. It is about ethics in public and private behavior and I am trying to explore where we fail.
Two great leaders from Uttar-Pradesh, late Chaudhury Charan Singh and now Mulayam Singh Yadav have a great fan following among the farmers. Both of them claimed to be secular and supported the cause of poor and farmers. And both were against modern technology. Charan Singh’s party’s manifesto condemned the technological advances in agriculture. Charan Singh’s son Ajit Singh got his education in an American University and learnt computer that time when the very usage of IT was never known. Now Charan Singh who preached people against English education and technology send his own son to US. Ajit Singh could not have done without his father’s support? Ofcouse, Charan Singh could easily say that what Ajit Singh does is his own concern, but can any one deny the fact that what will be Ajit Singh minus Charan Singh. If he were not Charan’s son, would any body vote for him? Though we respect our leaders yet we normally never question their double standards in life.
Similar is the case of Mr Mulayam Singh Yadav, who claimed to be following Dr Ram Manohar Lohia’s path. Mulayam officially abhorred English and warned that all the signboards of English languages will be blackened in Uttar-Pradesh. He responded to mails in Hindi only. But look the irony, Yadav’s son Akhilesh went to best educational institutions in the world. Can it be called personal matter of Mr Yadav. If he can think that English education is good for his son then why he preach it is bad for farmers and poor. If English could help his son why and how would it be detrimental for others. It is ‘thankfully’ to Mulayam’s education policy that the students of Uttar-Pradesh remain far behind than their counter parts in other parts of the country.
This double standard is every where particularly those who claiming to represent the ‘poor’. We know Jyoti Ba Phule, who practiced first and then preached. Educating his wife before going to others was a revolutionary work. They did not care what other would say about it. Bhagat Singh wrote of atheism and had courage to shorten his hair against the wishes of his father; Baba Saheb embraced Buddhism before preaching to embrace it. But the double standards are many in today’s life as I have personally seen those preaching Marxism, Maoism to the poor tribal, enjoying the best corporate life. Those abuse the west; enjoy the Western drink and courtesy. How can we say that personal life is different than your ideological life?
The point I am referring is that the right wing extremism or left wing extremism have no love for differences of opinion. That is why, when they pretend to lead from the front, the best example should from their personal lives. If a multinational is bad for tribal then it should be bad for the family members also. That is why we see the contrast in the personal lives of those who leads these social movements. Their children enjoy the best of the west while their ‘client’ the poor of India are fed on hot argument of ‘nationalism’ and ‘culture’. When, I points out the corporate background, the religious back ground of some of the sympathizers, we are told that ‘they are greater than those who started with poverty and have become rich’ at the cost of the people. Some of them are simply targeting the Dalit leadership which has some how come up and can claim to be equally corrupt like others. My problem is not whether they have declassed themselves or not the fact is that most of them have only been in the movement to ‘lead’ and not to sit and guide.
The problem is not what one earns how much or not. Despite all differences with ‘spiritual Gandhi’, one can not ignore the integrity of Gandhi as he publicly disowned his son Hari Das Gandhi when he felt that he was violating basic principles of his life which he believed in. Baba Saheb Ambedkar was a man of complete dedication and probity in personal life and hence none could even blame him today that he had double standards in life. It is not that he preached something different to people and practiced differently.
Many Ambedkarite today speak loudly in public and start with thrashing the Gods and Goddesses that never existed. I just tell them please stop this and start at home. The best way to get rid of this menace of God is what Baba Saheb Ambedkar preached you. If you have got a new way of life then do not worry why others are in that dirty pool. Your duty is to inform people and the best practice to get rid of them is from our very personal life. That is why in his personal life too Baba Saheb Ambedkar was perhaps the cleanest person who could defend anything and any action that he did in his life. He had valid arguments for his actions and based on those principals of life he grew. He was not a politician who could justify things for his personal gains. There was rarely anything personal for him. The amount of money that he invested to educate people, the educational institutions that he started are visible in the form a wider movement among the masses in various parts of the country. The cultural changes are also visible in our life that he strived was lead by him in his personal life. He did not preach us what he did not practice.
That is why he succeeded. The silent revolution in India that we have seen in Maharastra and elsewhere in India is actually brought by those who believed in Ambedkar’s vision of life. And the result is that more than anything that the Maoists and Marxists could bring, the Ambedkarite vision was of changing yourself and adopting the new vision of life, which is more democratic, more egalitarian and more respectful towards dissent. Today, the neo Buddhists are in all walks of life. In private sector, in sports, in industries, in entrepreneurship, at the music concerts, as the cultural change is visible among them. Others have not come up because they are still fighting the very battle of dignity with in those paradigms where things will not change. A cultural renaissance is needed to Change our self rather than wasting our energy on something that is fictitious and job of a perverse mind. That is where I appealed to all the right thinking persons to take care of their own home first and then preach the others. But some of our friends took it in a different way. They say, ‘It is absolutely wrong to bring personal matter into public’. I said there is nothing personal here but if you call yourself an Ambedkarite or Marxist or even a Maoist or an atheist then God should always be fearful of you rather than you fearing of ‘him’. You can not celebrate your godly traits, dine with them and say it is the freedom of your wife. These are not the issues of freedom but issues of our cultural subjugation. You can not keep it under the wrap that I am an Ambedkarite but I defend my wife’s right to wear a Mangalsutra and sport a sindoor over her head. You can not be a Marxist or an atheist at the same time playing an obedient husband of your wife on a ‘Karwachowth day’ and celebrating all those festivals that actually deny women a right to equality.
We can respect divergent view points. As I said at home our children may be different but we take care of them. At least some of the basic ideas they take from us. We do not say that they should do everything what we tell them. But definitely they should know what we do and they should have their view. Can our children disown us if they disagree our view points? Can we disown our children if our views are quite contrary to them? For example some Ambedkarite fathers actually disliked their children’s marriage to the upper caste girls. But that is an individual choice and must be respected. But what happened if the girl or the boy does not agree to father’s choice and start propagating the ideology of hatred just opposed to what we have believed. What should be the response? Should it just be two differences of opinion or should it be openly discarded and disowned? Moral questions are basically on these lines. You can always have differences of opinions as long as that believe in basic human liberty and democratic values, does not spread racial hatred and filth.
Two years back, I was in Tirupathi for a seminar on Ambedkarism being organized by a University there. In the evening, I got two veteran Ambedkarites from Delhi. One came along with his wife and wanted to find whether I was interested to visit Tirupathi Devasthanam in the morning as his wife came because of it. I flatly refused saying that I would rather sleep in the morning than going to a place which is epicenter of discrimination based on caste, gender and pocket. These things happen in our life. Number of friends married outside their castes. Not just with in the Dalits but mostly among the Brahmins and upper castes yet they face dilemma of revealing the facts. Question is one is not asking whether they should reveal who they married or not. Question is if you believe that inter caste marriage could be good for you then why you say it is bad for others. I speak against those who say that it is not good for others.
Unlike their western counterparts, Indian society is still patriarchical and completely male dominated. Here parents influence on children is always visible. Well, writing this article does not mean every child should become a Xerox copy of his parents and should not have the freedom. It also does not mean, every parent should kill their child if they marry outside their clan and community. As a humanist, I believe in that freedom, what I am writing about those who do not want to give this freedom to people who they treat as ‘subject’, and give them different prescription. My belief is that as a human being what I promote in the public should hold true to my family and personal matters. Social movements will only grow positively and effectively otherwise they will remain instant protest for some needs being exploited by the powerful ‘nationalist’ elite claiming to ‘represent’ the marginalized and giving all those prescription to Dalits and tribals which had become redundant for their own personal lives. Once the leadership has a feel of the pulse of the people, they will not take their fight to endless struggle till the ‘whole’ world changes, while living in their comfortable air conditioned halls. It is time to wake up for every individual to think well and not to surrender their right to any one else. The biggest change in the world comes through changing oneself. Ambedkar did it. We need to follow his words of advice and complete the revolution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)