A silent coup against Indian constitution

By Vidya Bhushan Rawat

India is passing through one of the most crucial phases of its political life. As the exercise of the ‘democracy’ begins the future of the country would also be locked and will be opened on May 16^th only. It is important to understand the dangers of what has happened so far. The results will be out in a month but it is for the first time in our history that ‘someone’ has already ‘declared’ himself as the prime minister of the country.  Things are not simple. Today, the ‘man’ is already declared as the ‘most powerful’ person of the country and every other questioning him has been made as person against ‘development’ and pseudo secular. It is not easy for a person who is main accuse for instigating violence against Muslims in Gujarat and kept conspicuously silent when people were crying for help such as fellow politician Ehsaan Jafari who was burnt to death by the barbaric anarchists mob which was allowed to do things at their whims by the state administration and who was admonished by his own prime minister, to be ‘anointed’ as a ‘national icon’. Witness the systematic campaign, rumors, fudging of data and then controlling the entire communication through a fictitious army of ‘devotees’ on social media and enforce ‘curfew’ in the news rooms which is worse than what Doordarshan and Aakashwani did in 1975. Today the role being played by embedded media is perhaps much disturbing and scornful to opponents and dissenting view point. If one has to see the replica of dirty tricks that Sanjay Gandhi played during emergency, these elections and the campaign management by the likes of Amit Shah are the best example.

We know media is Modified and at the moment not ready to listen to anything which can suggest that India had lot of achievements during the past 60 years. It seems that India got freedom by the freedom fighters owning their allegiance to Hindutva and after that everything that the Gandhi family did was simply to destroy India. In critiquing Sonia, Rahul and Indira, they have also made mockery of Nehru without any respect to either history or his contribution which political opponents are supposed to do even if they disagree. That started last year on October 31^st in Ahemdabad when chief minister of state make political speech to denigrate the first prime minister of India just to score a political point about Sardar Patel.

Yes, Congress is guilty of one hundred things. It demolished democratic values such as happened in 1975. Congress promoted cronyism. It promoted ‘chamchagiri’. It converted governors to agent of the congress party. It denigrated autonomous institutions like National Human Rights Commission, National Women’s Commission and other such autonomous bodies by picking up absolutely political chamchas to head those bodies which have responsibilities to provide justice to the people. It was the party that imposed Emergency in 1975 and anti-Sikh violence in 1984 in the aftermath of the assassination of Indira Gandhi are some of the darkest chapters of Congress Party’s life which are hard to erase as there is no remorse in ‘real’ sense. There were communal riots in the country and the government really did not take actions strongly. Meerut, Maliana, Bhagalpur, Nellie, Bombay, Malegaon and many more disturbances saw communalization of administration and police force. Today, there are talks of failures of dealing with these riots but it is also need to understand as who are the forces which speak language of hatred and retribution, who communalise the administration and used such symbols in public life and political speeches which unambiguously put the minorities make feel as ‘secondary’ citizens of the country?

There is no doubt that Congress has been a party of the brahmanical elite whose main interest was to maintain status quo through ‘liberal democratic’ face. But definitely you cannot blame Nehru for this. At least Congress remained much more democratic during his regime and despite all his weaknesses Nehru never ever courted the religious thugs, Gurus and communal forces. The down-fall of Congress began in the post 1980s with return of Indira Gandhi who created a Bhindarwalen and then appeased Hindus in Punjab. The same things happened in Jammu and Kashmir where Indira Gandhi sought votes for the protection of Hindus. Sanjay Gandhi was known to flirt with religious fundamentalists. Rajiv followed Indira’s legacy and actually did the same tricks though he was definitely much bold and wiser in many senses. He signed Punjab and Assam accord even at the cost of his own party government but his own cousin Arun Nehru was flirting with Hindu Gurus and Babas and got opened the locks of disputed ‘structure’ in Ayodhya. Later, Rajiv started with Ramrajya and lost the elections.

The biggest damage done to Congress was by P.V. Narsimharao who was basically influenced with the Sangh philosophy and had a number of friends. Rao believed in Vajpayee more than to his Congress colleagues. The demolition of Babari Masjid in December 1992 was a well-planned strategy of Sangh Parivar and definitely Narsimha Rao had knowledge about it. There is nothing new of these ‘expose’ now as two veteran journalists late Nikhil Chakrawarty and Prabhash Joshi were known to some of these deliberations between various groups. It was only after that ‘break’ of promise that Prabhash Joshi started writing to Hindutva goons as ‘terrorists’ otherwise he was always considered to be an insider.

Narsimha Rao depended on notorious babas like Chandra swamy and others who were actually ‘secular’ mascot of Hindutva. There were other ‘Shankaracharyas’ too who might condemn BJP for political reasons but never really were different from them. All this only helped the Hindutvaisation of Congress Party.

The last ten years of Manmohan Singh regime were different. Congress, for the first time, accepted that coalition era has arrived in India and had to provide political space to maneuver for smaller political parties. UPA-I started with great promises and government listened to civil society voices too. There was no hope for the government’s return to power but it returned. UPA two started in the ‘whims’ that there is no opposition to it now. It started with vigorous ‘corportisation’ by Man Mohan Singh and his close associates like P.Chidambaram and Montek Singh Ahaluwalia. The unrest caused in the states like Chhattishgarh, West Bengal and elsewhere added with growing corruption in fixing up the amount of coal block build up the perception. The UPA did not take things seriously and played game. The anti corruption plank was hijacked by the same forces who are actually the counterparts of Manmohan Singh and his team in the Hindutva organization.

The government never came out openly against Hindu fundamentalists. It played tricks and today we are in a condition where the government is ready to go out but people are really terrified and disturbed when the option and opportunities for a possible new regime are provided to us. We have no problem if those claiming to be ‘new’ and ‘alternative’ provide alternative to Chidambaram, Montek, Manmohan economics or give us an inclusive government in which Muslims, Dalits and Aadivasis feel safe and secure. The problem is that the new entrants are more ‘nationalistic’ and jingoistic in their approach whose different gangs and ‘senas’ will be ready to beat up the people for their dissent like the goons of Sanjay Gandhi during emergency.

Hence India faces the biggest challenge to its very idea and concept. The secular socialist democratic republic is under the threat from those whose heart lies in big corporations of America and Europe and who want to sale the public land and resources to those looters with in India or outside it for a throw away price in the name of ‘growth’. That is not alone; the very premise of our nationhood is now under ‘arrest’ by those who have no history of fighting the country and those who are actually replicas of Talibans and separatists Muslim League which sought Pakistan with an idea that Hindus and Muslims cannot live together despite the known history of people in India living together despite all kind of differences and fight.

Frankly speaking these forces are not fighting to eliminate a secular congress but to replace a brahmanical government which has become totally discredited. So, it is nothing but an attempt to retain the hegemony of miniscule minority which has been marginalized politically though their control over politics, bureaucracy, media and our national life remain uninterrupted. The fight of the Sangh parivar is against a congress which would be lead by Gandhi family and which is attempting to return to its secular socialist roots.

Congress lost the plot because its brahmanical government wanted to appease all by doing nothing. It played tricks rather than taking strong action on issues like corruption and then wrongful arrests of Muslim youths. It failed to bring the issues of minorities, Dalits and OBCs to the fore and fight for them with ideological clarity. The whole issue of food security, and natural resources was dealt with more symbolism and less in seriousness which resulted in move backfiring.

We also know there was a communication gap between the government and the party. The party was moving towards a different direction while the Ministers in the government were in different. Leaders like Kapil Sibol, Chidambaram, Moily, Pawan Bansal, Ashwini Kumar, Rajiv Shukla, Shree Prakash Jaiswal,Rita Bahuguna  and Shinde would take congress nowhere as there is not much perceptional difference between their thought and Hindutva and we can always find them in the other camp if things do not materialize here. The perception that Congress is corrupt went beyond the roof top. Now, this perception would not have worked easily if the Congress had done something good for Muslims, OBCs, Dalits and Aadivasis except for some constitutional provisions in technical sense. The dole out packages would not really work as people want participation in power. MNREGA and Mid Day meal would not work if they remain symbolic when the school education is privatized and people are still not able to get work more than 40 days a year.

Yet, a secular congress remained the best bet for India despite all these hick ups. I have no issue even if a so called third front come with a clear commitment to secular socialist republican ideals of the country. We have no issue whether Mayawati become Prime Minister or any other Dalit Bahujan leader or our friends from the left as India need to be governed by political class, those who worked for the people and not paratroopers who have been let loose on people from the above. We believe the people of India and have faith in them yet we have to understand now the enormity of this elections and why the saffron forces must be defeated at all cost who have unashamedly connived with corporate media and administration at one hand while hoodwinking people in the name of social engineering in the villages. A careful image has been crafted of Narendra Modi as a ‘tea seller’ who was ‘humiliated’ in his child hood. His macho images are also being projected and promoted actively everywhere including social media.

The last six months campaigning pattern can be seen which has silently upstaged and pulled the rug from the parliamentary system. In the system, we elect our members of Parliament and they elect a prime minister. Today, our democratic module has been carefully converted into a US style poll where we ‘need’ experts and therefore we have bureaucrats, army commanders, policemen, businessmen joining politics. There is no bar on any one’s contesting elections but attempt to subvert public opinion through embedded media has to be condemned. India will have to see these general elections in a different way. Yes, for the first time, we are witnessing the open defiance to norms and decency. Despite all our aversion to the Modi brand of politics and that of the Hindutva, the elections this time have crossed that limit. The corporate houses have cleverly done a coup against Indian democracy. First they manipulated a protest in the name of ‘fight against corruption’ and through Kejriwal and Anna attempted to discredit every institution we build up through hard work of our political forefathers. Now, the entire team Anna’s political ambitions have come out in open and Kejriwal has formed the party, the media had no option but to openly wage a war against him. The reason for a war against Kejriwal is because the media felt that a highly demoralised Congress Party would not be able to take on Modi and AAP is becoming the ‘biggest’ hurdle to Modi on his way to 7 RCR.

The media has already made Modi as Prime Minister and Modi is behaving as a prime minister of India. His body language, contempt for his predecessors and all other opponents look as if he would be able to run the government without any opposition. The Hindutva ‘event managers’ are targeting political leadership and trying to eliminate them following example of Israel which have used the same methodology to eliminate the genuine Palestine leadership. As more intelligence, military and policemen are joining the team. It looks they following the same tricks as they did in their duties.

Where are the common men and women in it? Celebrities are being appointed and we are informed, none less than Amit Shah that it is time for ‘expert’ to be brought in. What is the expertise of Hema Malini, Smriti Irani, Paresh Rawal, Kiron Kher and Meenakshi Lekhi? Yes, shouting at others on the prime time and using the worst kind of language towards your opponents. The system of nurturing a constituency and leaders interacting with their people has been done away with. Why should Rajnath Singh leave Ghaziabad constituency for Lucknow ? Why we fight in two constituencies? I think Mayawati does the best. She does not need a certificate whether she can win an election or not. She rarely contested and that give her strength to campaign for her candidates.

Despite Supreme Court warning, we seen those who are accused were given tickets by the BJP. And now we have seen the fulmination and vitriol by Amit Shah, Modi’s notorious but trusted colleague to ‘manage’ things in Uttar-Pradesh. Already vicious atmosphere has been created. But the most damaging thing to Indian democracy has been in the way of hiding facts from the people and absolute capitulation by the media which always claimed how it fought the tyranny of Indira Gandhi in 1975. The tyrant today is much more dangerous and fascist in attitude than Indira Gandhi. For all her shortcomings, Indira Gandhi had in her heart the socialist tendencies and she would never ever surrender to these crony thugs even when she might have sat with them.

Today, the entire agenda is being framed by the charlatans of these corporate thugs. They have turned out to be propaganda machinery of a man called Narendra Modi. Even within the BJP if any one raises question the ‘forward defense’ shouts at others. The nation wanted to know as why a devotee named as ‘Madhu Kishwar’ was granted interview by her God Narendra Modi? And one should know that a political opponent as media would try to pin down a simple young boy like Rahul Gandhi. Arnab tried to humiliate him without knowing the fact that the man Arnab Goswami and his Times Now team feel the ‘Bhagya Vidhata’ of India is a plain criminal and outright fascist who would not allow himself to be scrutinized to public. None in the media ever questioned why he is not talking to media? Yes the focus was on others and ofcourse the PR agencies working overtime to give us ‘shining Gujrat’ feel all the time where just two days three people were killed in a manhole cleaning the human excreta.

Why we are not informed that Modi and his government handed over in platter the precious communal land. Today, village Panchayats in Gujarat do not have land. The success of a few powerful Gujratis is being presented as a great ‘revolution’ done there. Thankfully, India is not Gujrat. It is much more vibrant and colorful than a state where money matter more than anything else.

So the fight of people of India is not against a tyrant but also against the corporate media which has made itself more powerful than anything else. It is package news to sell its own interest. The time has come to expose the activities inside the newsrooms. The immunity that they have got in the name of ‘media’, ‘writer’ and ‘journalists’ must be done away with. It is time to have a press council which can have the power of derecognizing them. After all, media is not above Indian law. If they claim to unbiased and committed to news then it is time to ask question a how much space have they given to political parties other than the saffron. During emergency we used to call Aakashwani as ‘Indirawani’ but today with hundreds of channels, all of them have been ‘fixed’ by the ‘Hindutva’ ‘managers’.

Just a few days back we got the news that in one EVM in Assam the authorities found that pressing any button would only stamp Lotus. It is time to put a break on it as things are moving dangerously and with entire administration now polarized and communalized we are heading towards anarchy and chaos. Democracy is not a guarantee to peace building alone. Democracy has been hijacked by the corporate and manuwadis who are now using all their tricks to deny others a right. How can we succeed as a democracy when it become symbolic and provide legitimacy to all illegitimate acts? Can any democracy allow an individual to snoop? Will any democracy allow its leaders to speak the language of retribution, hatred and murder? For a pluralistic society with so much of diversity, the corporate honchos added with their admen masquerading as journalists and opinion makers have converted it into a ‘Americanised’ debate where an entire country of over one billion people are being asked to decide between three choices. This game of first converting a non entity into a brand and then discrediting democratic institutions to dislodge a democratically elected government was unheard of at least in India. But corporate did it. And now they are not even giving us an alternative. They have already declared Modi as prime minister through their ‘surveys’ which they carry on so vigorously to manipulate public opinion.

All the right thinking people are worried about the non representation of minorities as well as numerous minorities even among Dalit Bahujan and Aadivasis. They are worried about as why people are not included in decision making. With every election, the number of these segments in our parliament is reducing and we have no way to increase their fair representation. How can the demand for a fair representation of 15-20% of its Muslim population in our power structure be termed as ‘communal’. It is a fact that it is not communal when Ramdev, Ravi Shankar and other ‘bhudevtas’ seek vote for Modi but when Shahi Imam speak not to vote to BJP that is termed as communal. You bring out hate speech of Iqbal Masood some six month back and send him to Jail but have no action against either Amit Shah or Vasundhara Raje who is holding a ‘responsible’ position. If past speeches have to be found and people banned on those lines then Advani, Uma Bharati, Modi and others will only find their place in Jails but then the ‘movement’ for ‘Ram janambhoomi’ was the ‘biggest’ movement of his life which Advani termed as bigger than the ‘quit India’ movement of 1942. Nothing is communal when Vijay Kumar Malhotra says Okhla and Jamia Nagar areas in Delhi are den of ‘terrorists’. We know what hate speeches mean. Those who have seen the role played by Hindi media as well as the political class of the Hindutva, just search for  videos of 1989,1991, 1992 in Uttar-Pradesh, Bihar and elsewhere of speeches of all these gentlemen and women.

Already those who fought against this tyranny are being targeted. They are being abused and if they are invited to media discussions they are being lynched. Anchors have already decided who to provide space and who to demolish. Indian parliament seems to be made virtually a non entity in front of these larger than life anchors. They have created situations which need to be defeated now. The war is on the people of India. It is the war of lies, deceit, calumny, distortion, falsification and glorification of information to deny people their legitimate right in the democracy. We elect our leaders to work for us but leaders are being imposed from the above. Celebrity culture is being developed to dupe people.

Socialism is the dirty word for media and corporate but that is the part of our preamble. They hate secularism too and that is why it is the biggest challenge today. Will India remain the same after May 16^th?  Will hate mongers be there to decide our destiny? Will those who are ready to sale our resources to crony and corrupt corporate will be our ‘decision makers’? How can anyone be our leader whose name creates fear and hatred among 20 percent of its population which is in real sense around Twenty Crore, a number which is much bigger than combine population of France, Germany, UK, Switzerland, Itlay and perhaps a few other European countries.

When India was moving ahead and polity was becoming more decentralized, the threat has emerged in the form of a ‘cult’ revolving around a person. The important part of parliamentary system is that it provides opportunity to all and that is why people like Mayawati, Lalu Yadav, Mulayam Singh Yadav, Phoolan Devi and many others could make it to Parliament and became leaders of their state. If we are unable to preserve our democratic system, these thugs will only force us leaders from the above to lead the nation. It is that danger lurking over our head which we have to demolish in these elections. It is time we ask for a change in our political system and make it more proportionate to provide opportunity and space to all the marginalized sections of society. Our political system also needs changes and that to effectively such as Germany did in the aftermath of Hitler who also came through ‘popular mandate’. When the system convert to proportionate arrangements there is little chance of a fascist takeover of the state. We hope that the people of India will not allow the constitution to be defeated in these elections. Hope they will not allow those who do not even repent for the scores of deaths because of their farcical movements for a temple and yet want to build a Ram Temple with ‘unanimity’ and constitutional mean. Time has come to call a rebuff to such forces who wish to legitimize the demolition of Babari Mosque? Strange but true that such forces are still operating and dreaming to be our leader is shocking beyond word. They will continue to use those symbolism that hurt and humiliate Muslims like calling for unanimity in building up a Ram Temple, Uniform Civil Code, abrogation of article 370, ‘cow protection’ and many such things. Let us hope people will realize how important these elections are to save our democracy and its secular socialist constitution.

Dissent is the essence of Ambedkarism

By Vidya Bhushan Rawat

There have been lot of discussion on Arundhati Roy’s ‘introduction’ to ‘Annihilation of caste’ a historical document produced by Dr Baba Saheb Ambedkar which should have been introduced in our school text books as well as made part of syllabus in Universities in India. I am of the firm opinion that let this book be introduced to our students without any introduction or edition or deletion by any one. Let the students develop their critical thinking to understand the dynamics of caste and how it has sought to be defended in the name of traditions and religion by high and mighty who we ‘worship’.

Before, I could write anything about the introduction that Arundhati Roy wrote, some friends questioned and perhaps the issue got deviated. The issue is not whether she can write on Ambedkar or not. No one can stop anyone to write on a public figure and his or her work. A few of them said that none had brought this great work to international people and hence if Navayana is doing so we should complement him. It is wrong to say that the work has not been published. Of course, the debate of annihilation of caste actually remains within the confines of ‘converted’. Fact is that Dalits do not need this debate as it has to go to the so called dwijas whose arrogance will destroy India as a civilized nation. In an award giving ceremony just a few days back when I referred the name of Ambedkar to push my idea of ‘constitutional morality’ and there were loud cries against me for being ‘casteist’. Such is the aversion as if Ambedkar discovered caste. Gandhi remains biggest patronizer here with the arrogant simplicity of the Gandhians.

Like any other community and intelligentsia, Ambedkarite or those claiming to be, are also of different varieties and hence reaction to her book and article cannot be said to be the only Ambedkarite position, as it is a huge world and opinion differ here too. Definitely those who feel hurt at her patronizing attitude too are young Ambedkarites and have their issues which have some very valid points and definitely need discussion. The reaction of the Ambedkarites is very much democratic as they have right to boycott any ceremony or book which definitely the Maoists would not have allowed in Chhattishgarh if uncomfortable questions were raised about their ideology and perception. It is not that some upper castes have written about Ambedkar or on caste for the first time. There were many who participated in his movements in Mahad too but yes really never claimed their brahmanical lineage. Yes, there are serious question but we must also understand the fact that the movement has grown much from the rhetoric of our own voice and identity to ideology now. Hundreds of those who claim Ambedkar by virtue of their birth are in Hindutva while equal numbers of those who do not have the ‘caste’ as a factor to embrace Ambedkar and came to him just with the idea of liberation are with the movement. Definitely Dr Ambedkar is not just an ideologue but an emancipator and liberator of the community and central to Dalit identity.

There were leaders like Jagjivan Ram who remained with power structure and had more in relations with upper castes than the Dalits. There are great soldiers of Ambedkarite movement such as Bhadant Anand Kautshlyayan who came to Ambedkar and Buddhism because they knew brahmanism is a disease and hence they left it. It was he who had translated huge work of Baba Saheb Ambedkar into Hindi for common masses. Though their number is very low yet they remain important part of Ambedkar’s movement in spreading Buddhism to common masses.

Ambedakarites are now making solidarity with other like-minded revolutionaries. They know all those revolutionaries are part of their movement which Baba Saheb was the central figure. Hence March 23^rd is celebrated by a huge number of Dalits all over the country in their own way to remember Bhagat Singh and his ideas about a casteless secular India. For years Ambedkarite organizations have been organizing the birthday celebrations of Rahul Sankrityayan whose contribution to Buddhism in India is extraordinarily underrated by ‘experts’. And these legends have been part of Ambedkarite discourse for long. There are numerous others who have been working silently in the movement and have left their identities which they have inherited by birth. Actually, such variety of Ambedkar’s movement is much more visible at the ground with common masses than those who claim to be educated. Young scholars are now challenging the status quo and brilliantly articulating their views. Definitely they do not want to be ‘favored’ or patronized. It is the self-respect and dignity aspect that appeals to them. They want to create a niche for them independently. Hundreds of them are now published, become international and are serving in different capacities. They are coming back to community also through different means. Frankly speaking the criticism to Arundhati came more from the young budding Ambedkarites and not from those who are already established.

Their concern may be an overreaction but they have a right to speak their mind. Some where they felt that the attempts are being made to project Arundhati as the new ‘messiah’ of the Ambedkarite Dalit movement. Definitely, it was not needed and Arundhati does not require that. She has her own fan following and all those who follow are not upper caste Hindus but Dalits, tribal, minorities and vastly those market forces too who she always target in her essays.  Therefore we have to understand that neither is Arundhati the first non-Dalit writing on Ambedkar, nor is she going to be the last. Secondly, as we move ahead, more research come, more political interest creep in, there will be people who will also redefine Ambedkar according to their own convenience. Since Ambedkar has become a big brand in the post 1990s, every ideological formulation wants to use him for their own purpose. Despite critique like Arun Shourie and Sanjay Paswan

There are those who initially were Ambedkarites but now ‘critiquing’ him too for their own selfish motives. The reason I am writing it is that an attempt is being made to look the entire Ambedkarite movement in a ‘Talibanised’ way which has no level of tolerance to a dissenting view point. In fact, a huge number of people have not heard about the book written by Arundhati Roy because the entire discourse is running around English speaking groups.

It is therefore important to understand that Arundhati Roy’s writings are an extension and not everything. Ambedkarites know Ambedkar much better than Roy but we cannot snatch her right to write on an issue which she deem fit. For millions of oppressed masses in India Baba Saheb Ambedkar is not just another political leader, thinker or writer, he remain their father figure, philosopher and guide and therefore there will be definitely a difference between those who analyse Ambedkar as a political philosopher like any other contemporary and those for whom he was an emancipator.

Now I come to the point raised in the essays written by Arundhati Roy who plead her case passionately. Those who know Ambedkar and his writing well do understand that he does not need someone to ‘introduce’ him to the world but at the same point of time he is also an international icon now and will be evaluated, presented and analysed in different ways. We have right to counter the allegations or criticism in a democratic way. We have seen those days when a brahmanical ‘intellectual’ called Arun Shourie tried to misrepresent the facts on Ambedkar in his so-called ‘research’. It was a lawyer’s argument denigrating Ambedkar because he felt Ambedkar criticized Gandhi and questioning Gandhi for Arun Shourie was like challenging the very idea of India and its authority. Shourie selectively quoted or I would say misquoted Ambedkar. Years later, a brahmanical Maoist ideologue Rangnayakamma too came out with a book criticizing Ambedkar as a part of the power structure and did not address the basic issues of Dalits.

Arundhati Roy has been fascinated by the Maoists struggle in the forest of Bastar. She has written extensively and definitely spoken on other issues where Indian government has definitely not done a great service like issue of Armed Forces Special Power Act in North-East and Kashmir. Prior to that Roy was also in the Narmada Valley but realized that their struggle could not attain anything for the masses as it is fighting with in the same ‘power structure’.

The issues of Dalits and Aadivasis are different yet also similar in many aspects. Both are oppressed communities. One remained isolated in the forests and became victim of the ‘developmental’ agenda of the Indian state while others were victim of brahmanical hierarchical social system and faced not just ostracisation but cultural violence. Aadivasi movement though strong in certain pockets got romanticized by upper caste ‘intellectuals’ who enjoyed ‘patronizing’ it in the name of ‘preserving’ cultural identity of the community while Ambedkar became a difficult person for them as he not only questioned the very thesis of ‘golden ‘past’ but also sought participation in power structure. Dignified participation in all walks of life is the biggest problem for the upper elite to accept.  So Ambedkar’s perception differ highly with those romantics of past who harp that India has become ‘worst’ because of British Raj in this country. It is not that he was not critical of British Raj and its implications on India but he feared the Hindu Raj to be worse than the so-called whites as the caste prejudices among the caste Hindus were deep rooted and could have been detrimental to the growth of the rights of the Dalits if they were not ensured in the constitution.

I have not read the book definitely went through Arundhati’s essays published in Caravan as well as her interview given to outlook. They are definitely based on many other ‘left critique’ of Dr Ambedkar particularly the issue of ‘village’. Yes Dr Ambedkar said villages in India are den of feudalism, nepotism and casteism. They live in ignorance and are truly  a replica of Manu’s law. The biggest state in India is actually brahmanical mindset. It is more powerful than any other things. Arundhati has written on numerous occasions about Bastar and how the tribals are denied right to even protest. Contrary to this, Hazare and his upper caste followers like Kejriwal have been given larger than life role by media and protection by police and administration. Why? They fixed in the upper caste nationalism which only is the guarantee of right and wrong in India according to power elite. Hence when we discuss ‘State’ in India, we cannot talk state in a utopian Marxist sense to hide the follies and crookedness of the brahmanical masters of the state.

I am sure, Arundhati must have heard about the water movement in Mahad lead by Dr Ambedkar. That apart, he fought many battles for workers’ rights with trade unionist in Nagpur, Mumbai as well as for the land rights of the people. He talked about ‘Nationalisation’ of land and stood for it even when he could not do anything for it in the constitution of India because of all the obscurantists’ hell bent to stop his reforms. He was a thorough democrat and hence did not approve the ‘communist’ form of government but he was fascinated with the land reforms that had taken place in Soviet Union and China. Often critique of Dr Ambedkar brings the issue of his call for people to migrate to cities and his appreciation for freedom and liberation in the United and Europe without understanding the meaning and feeling behind these words.

Dr Ambedkar called people to migrate to cities, to adopt new education, shun superstition and develop rationalist attitude. We must appreciate this was his concern for the community and he was speaking as an elder who had faced untouchability in his life time. When he went to United States he felt different as none asked him question about his caste and identity and every one shook hand with him. And once he returned to India with a bigger degree and experience yet the caste minds discriminated against him and State of Baroda could do nothing. So, we have to realize that in India state is nothing but Brahmanism and unless you target the brahmanical values, its system, the merely shouting Indian state and leaving the ‘builders’ of these state out of your criticism will only amount to your trying to avoid caste discrimination.

So when Ambedkar appreciated the freedom and liberty that he breathed in United States of America and Europe, it does not mean that he supported all their action. How is it possible? When he was speaking for the rights of Dalits who were his main concern, how is amounted to ‘not being able to speak’ for ‘aadivasis’. He defended their right of cultural autonomy and Schedule Areas to be demarcated for the Aadivasis. Yes, he was not in a luxurious position like Gandhi to speak for everyone. Even speaking on behalf of Dalit was challenged by Gandhi who claimed that he had more ‘followers’ among the ‘Harijans’ than Dr Ambedkar. Yes, Gandhi’s followers will always remain Harijans but Ambedkar’s followers will remain those who believe in dignity and self-respect. A call to migrate to cities was meant for his people in the very similar way ‘educate, agitate and organise’ where he advised people to migrate to cities to save themselves from the violence of untouchability and caste discrimination. It does not mean that he wanted to demolish the villages. He wanted to demolish the caste structure in the villages and not villages. One should appreciate a man who embrace Buddhism cannot be a hater of nature. Ambedkar modernism does not mean building of ‘concrete’ structure. He talks of ‘prabuddha’ Bharat which from his own understanding was where caste identities are demolished and he felt it was only possible once India embrace the path of Buddha. Many people may not like it as they have their own prejudices towards Buddhism but Dr Ambedkar had realized that in Buddha’s path lies our salvation. So when he talks of modernity, it means end of Khap Panchayats and concealed hatred.

In his book Pakistan or partition of India, Dr Ambedkar clearly mentions that Hindu Rashtra would be a calamity for India. He says unambiguously that Hindu Rashtra would be as dangerous as Muslim Rashtra and then he went on to say that only a political formation of the workers, Dalits, aadivasis, OBCs and other secular progressive people can counter the communal forces in the country.

It is not without reason that Ambedkar talked about cooperative farming and support to farmers. His main emphasis was people’s participation and how Dalits were to be made part of this power structure. If those who are now becoming part of power structure do not remain committed to their ideology, it is not the problem of Ambedkar but dishonesty of those who use him. We all know that Dr Ambedkar wanted people to work for society.

In the constituent assembly debates he tirelessly advocated for the Directive Principles of State and claimed that they were instructions to the state to work on. Can anyone show that Dr Ambedkar has ‘love’ for capitalist order or has he ever supported western invasions or imperialism? Yes, in India, he felt Hindu imperialism would be more dangerous than the British imperialism and he was negotiating with British government for ensuring the space for the untouchables as he used to say. Don’t we know that Congress Party was formed not to ask for ‘freedom’ of India but ensuring the space for caste Hindus in power structure and hence it called for reservation for Hindus in the British regime?

It is important to understand that Dr Ambedkar was a thorough democrat and his vision for India was basically a society which has equality of people irrespective of their sex, caste, religion and other identities. 

The day India become a society, the day we respect individuals, it is possible. I know many people who have fascination for ‘collectives’ will never like Dr Ambedkar’s view. It is not that he was against Panchayati raj institution but his concern was how Dalit could be part of a majoritarian dominant culture without losing their autonomy and freedom. Will the draconian majoritariasm that exists in our villages allow the Dalit voices of dissent in our Panachayat democracy? Will this Panchayati Raj not turn into a Hindu Raj suppressing Dalit voices? If we see the results after 60 years what does it prove? Can we say that the fears expressed by Dr Ambedkar were wrong? Don’t we know how our Panchayat model operates?

Ambedkar is an institution. He is a hope. He is a voice for millions who have been denied rights but definitely he might have his own issues and problems. He has been criticized in the past and in future too as they are part of life. And the criticism of Ambedkar will not come from the so called upper castes but emerging from the Dalits too but none deny them that as everyone has a right to voice her opinion. However, it would be good to understand that Ambedkar was not a write or philosopher but a leader of huge segment in India so many of his decisions are political in nature taken at that point of time. He is not here to answer those questions and if we were here he would have responded. A leader has to be analysed in entirety.

We must remember that Dr Ambedkar was an iconoclast. He never believed in icons and his hero was Voltaire whose famous quote he always used,’ I may disagree with you but I will defend your right to express’. He always mentioned that India needed a Voltaire, a dissenter who can speak without keeping things in heart. When he questioned Gandhi his opponent called him British stooge but he signed the Poona pact to save Gandhi’s life. He was a fighting a lonely battle that time. Today, we have huge number of educated people, aspiring writers, journalists, academics yet the work with the people not gone. Those who want to make us believe that Ambedkar only had a constitution book in his hand actually leave aside his historical role in mass struggle for the rights of the people. One has to understand that he used all the opportunities that came in front of him for the sake of his community and hence when we review him or speak of him, we need to take into account the circumstances.

Ambedkar stood for all those who were oppressed by religious dogmas. He challenged all the religious scriptures. He challenged the state and provided the state a new alternative. He himself said that good constitutions too can be failed by bad people. He further said that if this constitution fails to protect people, he would be the first to burn it. He always wanted that India need a Voltaire who could not be the voice of the state but stand with people. I am sure, despite differences, he would have appreciated Arundhati Roy speaking for people and becoming a prominent dissenter in this age when state and corporate are coopting everyone. After all, how many of us are speaking against the Indian state? How many of us have stood up and said that the act of Indian state in Chhattishgarh amount to violation of rights of Aadivasis? She already has a voice and does not need to write on Ambedkar to get ‘famed’. She is already famous world over whether we like it or not. If she lent voice to any movement, it strengthens. It is not that she will come and become the leaders of Dalits. So, let us give her the right to write and we have every right to democratically critique her and frankly speaking I felt the young Ambedkarites have followed that path only. Let us take these things positively without further hatred as these have lessons for us all. Baba Saheb Ambedkar’s place in the heart of Dalits cannot be replaced by anyone but at the same point of time, Ambedkar as an international leader for all the oppressed masses will also be under study by political commentators and social scientists which is a great sign as it mean Ambedkar’s idea is now being accepted by all as the future of democratic world. 

Republic of Dominants

By Vidya Bhushan Rawat

A student from Arunachal Pradesh was lynched to death in the heart of South Delhi after an altercation with a shop owner who ‘joked’ at the hair style of the boy Nido, son of an MLA and student in a college here. The boy lost his life as he got beaten up by the shop owner and his friends who extracted rupees ten thousand too from the boy for ‘breaking’ their glass in the shop. There is outrage all over the country. Political parties have condemned the incident and as usual blamed Delhi police for its inept handling of the situation.

This is not the first incident of racial violence against the people from North East and Delhi is not the only state where such incidents are happening and despite all the media coverage and importance being given to the incident, this would not be the last of its kind as prejudices in our minds against those who do not look like us and have same kind of ‘characteristics’ are rampant. Frankly speaking, it is not just a law and order issue, it reflect the deep-rooted prejudices in our mind and need a long term solution.

There are two responses to the issue. One from the political angle which considers that this incident may create unrest in North east and alienate the people further particularly states like Arunachal Pradesh which are always claimed as ‘disputed’ territory by China. The others feel that it give leverage to Christian missionaries in their effort to ‘convert’ people as many of them have been blaming the church for their persistent engagement in proselytization process in these states. Many want a very patronizing attitude like they are our ‘poor’ cousins, living in forest, isolated regions and hence need to be ‘helped’ in the name of ‘national integration’.

For a ‘profit maker’ in Delhi these issues are not of importance as he sees them as helpless people who need residence in Delhi and hence force them to his terms and conditions. The middlemen extract money from them and the women from the north east are considered ‘available’ all the time due to their life style. It is not that these issues are not known to people in the North East. Many of them actually feel that these young boys and girls have to be a little careful as their security is of paramount concern for the families and their near dear ones. The question is how these issues are addressed by authorities.

If you ask people as what is the problem with the North Eastern boys and girls living in our metros and pet come the answer they must be ‘integrated’ in our mainstream. It needs to be answered as what is the ‘mainstream’ which we want to convert the friends from the north east. The police authorities in Delhi have offered some ‘guidelines’  in the form of a booklet for the students and visitors from North East as ‘security’ tips . ‘The booklet advises girls from the region to avoid wearing any “revealing dress” and has suggestions about cooking “smelly” food without creating a “ruckus” in the neighborhood.

It is interesting that the booklet has been written by a senior police official of Delhi police hailing from North East. It has been widely condemned that the police is trying to ‘integrate’ people at the cost of their culture and life style. The students, visitors and activists have condemned these guidelines and questioned their motivation. However, it is important to understand that these guidelines reflect our mindset and not merely policing and administration.

The other day, we heard Delhi’s law minister speaking about the Ugandan girls in Khirki village during their illegal raid that ‘these’ are not people like ‘us’. They are engaged in ‘prostitution’ and drug peddling said the minister. It is evident that the ‘cultural’ dissent is being seen in those who we feel ‘inferior’ to us. The fact is that despite our jargons and loud talks, Indians rarely mixed up with the people of African origins and we would definitely love to be in the company of ‘superior’ American and Europeans. Have we imagined as what would have been the repercussions of a ‘raid’ if the people were not from Uganda and Nigeria but from America or Europe?

What is visible here is a deep rooted prejudice against those who have a different culture than us where women too enjoy equal status and can go out without a male escort, where girls and boys are like friend, where violence against women is least and women are in fact  leader in their own and visible in the social culture lives. These are our northeastern states where we can find a much egalitarian and gendered society exists unlike most metros and rest of the country where feudal values are rampant.

Actually, India is a republic of dominant where democracy provides stamp of approval to majoritarian thinking pattern and their deeds and this makes India highly dangerous. Shockingly it is a society which is not ready to accept even minor changes that threaten the status quo and violent anti Mandal protests in 1990 are example of how we look towards affirmative action for the most marginalized communities. The real meaning of democracy means an equitable and liberal society where people live in mutual respect and have sound understanding of rights of each other. It also means ensuring participation of all the segments in power and feel of security and safety in the minds of the most marginalized one. Unfortunately, for Indian democracy of the dominant has become a tool of the power elite to coopt the minorities into their cultural practices and that is why a Shahrukh Khan, Salman, Saif or Aamir are popular when they adopt the ‘dominant’ cultural values and represent their values not in practice but more in symbol to give a justification to the idea of ‘’secularism’.

The friends of North-East are good as long as they take the jokes and jibes on them ‘sheepishly’ and do not respond to all those nasty remarks which they often face. The girls of north east are considered as ‘cheap’ and ‘available’ just because they do not cover themselves from head to toe and move around in confidence.  How can a man who has seen his mother, grand-mother, sister, wife in purdah all the time accept other women without that? It comes in their mind that these women are easily available and they can do whatever they wish to including commenting and even staring at them awkwardly.  The violence starts when the move is rejected by the person and hence you can hear the comments like Chinky and so on.

It is not that the slur is reserved for the North Eastern people only. If you see contempt of people looking different then who better than people of Uttarakhand and Himachal know it when they are referred contemptuously as ‘Pahadi’.  I was shocked to hear from a receptionist in Warangal, Andhra Pradesh last year, asking me to show my passport to him. He never believed me when I said, I came from Delhi. My own experiences are much better in Nepal, Thailand and even far away countries like Bolivia and Guatemala where people felt, I am one among them and not really from India. 

However, it is not as simple as misunderstanding of people and their identities. It is much bigger. Most of the people who hail from hills are actually much more liberated in their outlook and culture. Even when there may not be a matrilineal system, I would say, it is on people to record that men-women relationships in these regions are much liberal and far better than to say the people living in plain regions. One of the reasons for that is the distinctive life style, smaller land holdings and peaceful nature of the hill people. 

Last few years we have seen the protests in Delhi on so many issues mostly related to people of ‘Delhi’. They were most in the nature of Delhi’s regional aspirations though they impacted ‘India’. Delhi witness protest and dharanas from the people who are not from Delhi. They shot from ‘Delhi’but neither media nor ‘people’ of  Delhi have time for them. It look that the ‘poorest’ and most marginalized people of India live in ‘Delhi’, betrayed by all and now there was a Rambo going to ‘liberate’ them. Such protests were great but inherently biased and highly nationalistic. They shouted slogan against the federal government, called parliamentarians thieves, mocked at them and other legislatures and discredited all the institutions of democracy that we have built so far so laboriously. The protestors did not follow any rule. Most of them had anti Dalit-anti Muslim biases and their India confined to their own issues. All other Indians who do not agree with their view point needed to be demolished or conquered.  They gave example of ‘direct’ democracy. The language was abusing, vulgar and yet police did nothing. The slogan was like ‘dilli police’ was with them insidiously. No action was taken against them. It was an unruly mob mocking at every institution of democracy but do we have the same facility for the people in Chhattishgarh and Jharkhand. Can the tribal of Odisha and other central Indian state have the same luxury to protest against the police brutality in their states? Can the Muslims of Gujarat, Mujaffarnagar and other parts of India who have been falsely implicated in various cases of terror, do an indefinite Dharana at Jantar Mantar or Ramlila ground? Will the police with them be so friendly if they plan to do so?

It means it is a democracy of dominant where the opinion of the dominant matter the most and we all care for that. The minority opinion does not matter for them. The entire Indian government apparatus is shaken up when an Anna Hazare or Arvind Kejriwal sits on Dharna but non bothers when a woman from Manipur from Sharmila has been on hunger strike for the past 10 years against AFSPA but without any serious effort by the state to address the issues she raised. The armed forces are fighting war in Kashmir, in North East, in Central India and at many places fighting against our own people. At most of the places the demands of the people are political in nature, for more autonomy and yet the reaction of the state is violent and brutal.

The democracy of dominant reflects clearly in the non-action of the state in major cases of violence against minorities or marginalized. Whether it is the violence against Sikhs in 1984 or violence against Muslims in 1993 or Maliana, Meerut, Bhagalpur or Gujarat, the victims have rarely got justice. Contrary to this, such violence and polarization has always helped the dominant politically. Gujarat 2002 ensured that Modi remain powerful in Gujarat.  Shiv Sena and MNS have been engaged in goondaism in Maharastra and became more powerful after the Babari demolition in 1992 and yet nothing happened to them. Rajiv’s Congress got huge mandate on the killings of Sikh and I called it a communal mandate based on hatred against Sikh community. Nothing happened to anyone. The violence against Dalits and marginalized are on the rise and Haryana is a case example but since those who are perpetrating it are Jats, the powerful community of Haryana state hence nothing happened. Mujaffarnagar is the same case example that violence happened and people were glorified and yet no action has been taken and everybody knew why? The High Court of Patna finds no proof of involvement of Ranvir Sena in the Lakshmanpur Bathe case and each of the accused is released honorably. Is it not the irony that even after 60 years of our independence we are still finding such prejudices at every level in our ‘structure’?

The crime against minorities and marginalized have a tendency of being seen as ‘dissent’ and ‘threat’ to dominant culture and in the dominant political and social discourse it needs to be justified when crushed by vigilant mob of the dominant. The mob mindset of the dominant actually takes control of the ‘law’ in the name of societal and cultural issues. That is why we have Khap Panchayats where anybody disagreeing to a certain view point is seen as a challenge to society and hence must be eliminated. It became more so in case of people whose caste and colors are considered to be inferior. The ‘inferior’ have to be coopted in the popular belief system yet they cannot claim equal rights. Hence, a good Muslim would be those who respect ‘cow’ and the holy text books of Hindus but the same prescription is not meant for a Hindu. A good northeastern person is the one who can speak in Hindi, appreciate our ‘great culture’, become vegetarian and strictly follow the ‘rules’ dictated by the ‘dominant’. When you take a flight for Ahmedabad, you won’t get non vegetarian food as we have to respect the sentiments of ‘dominant’, in this case Gujaratis. I mean, the weak, the minorities, marginalized have to respect the sentiments of the ‘powerful’ and yet not claim equality.

Hence, Nido’s death does only reflect one thing clearly. It is that the violence perpetuated by the shopkeepers was inherently racial in nature. It is a dominant discourse that these people are not ‘like’ us. The normal description of the ‘people with difference’ is that they are meat eaters, drink, dance and engage in sex as if all this is a crime according to Indian penal code and all these ‘dominant’ do not have access to this. The raid by Somnath Bharati, the law minister of Delhi in the houses of Ugandan nationals living in Delhi is a case point. How the Minister was telling that ‘these’ people are not like us and engaged in a ‘prostitution’ racket. If Somnath Bharati has guts to close all this than he must visit GB Road and cleanse there first, rehabilitate the women there who are definitely not living there out of their choice but seer compulsion. Can he do it? Can Indian really call a spade a spade? Then Bharati has to condemn the Devdasi system which is prostitution sanctified by the ‘Gods’ and Hindu way of life. But then nothing happened to that. Devdasi is still a system and we have not been able to eliminate it fully as the forces behind promotion of it are dominant one.

Indian democracy will move towards anarchy as the dominant want it. Why Kejriwal, Arnab Goswami and Narendra Modi are liked by the urban middle classes? It is simple because they shout loud, they abuse and they mock at others who do not seem to be like them. It fetches better results. The dominants are now afraid of the domination of the hitherto marginalized sections of society. As the democratic space opens up for more marginalized and their leader take control of the system, the dominant will regroup under different banners. They will use politics, religion and morality to remain in power and undo the agenda of social justice. With media and corporate power in hand, the dominant make a full-fledged assault on the system through various means. It will make false and lofty promises to people and discredit the current system. It does not have a credible alternative yet people suffering from the institutional inefficiency rush to them in search of alternative and feel betrayed. The other way is through lies and deceits being spread by popular media in the hope that repeating lies and deceit will make them truth.

It is an attempt to codify the society and create anarchy so that forces of social justice and marginalized are further marginalized. It will create new issues so that the state does not have time to address the real issues. How is any government going to address the issues of North East, Kerala, Telangana, Kashmir, Dalits, Muslims, terrorism if India’s main problem remains Arvind Kejriwal and Anna Hazare. Since they represented dominant view point all kind of forces supported them and government was favorable to them but at the end of the day, a country like India will need to provide space for all. Democracy cannot become truly republican unless each marginalized section of society including minorities do not have fair space, representation in power structure, political parties and in the government. Those who are trying to side track these wider issues under their one point programme are actually engaged in the politics of dominant which is afraid of the growth of the marginalized sections of society and a demand for more diversity and more representation from diverse sections of our people. Democracy must demolish this politics of Khap Panchayat or Ramleela Maidan which is nothing but political discourses of dominant to destroy the real and genuine voices of the most marginalized communities. A successful democracy will only pave the way for them and bring their issues to the main political agenda.

Each political leader of today who matters in India represents one particular community in the state which is dominant whether numerically or in muscle power. And we have seen the results as they will justify everything in the name of ‘democracy’. The violence against the most marginalized continued with ostensible state support. State actually here becomes the voices dominant castes. It is important now to democratize our social system otherwise the whole edifice of democracy will be demolished by such ideas which are actually anti-democratic in nature.

Nido became victim of politics of dominance and so were thousands of Sikhs and Muslims who were butchered in Delhi and Gujarat. Same dominant kept quiet when Gandhi was killed in 1948 and Rajiv was killed in 1991 but the dominant became violent when Indira Gandhi was killed in 1984. Political scientists and analyst must focus on this political discourse and attempt should be made to expose this politics of the dominant so that democracy become vibrant enjoyed by all. Violence against minorities and marginalized is actually not the outcome of politics of this political party or that but the politics and control of the dominant communities who control all the parties as well as governance system too.

The Legacy of Nelson Mandela

Striking Similarities and coopting power elite

By Vidya Bhushan Rawat

Nelson Mandela is no more. As Indians were readying to remember their founding father Dr Ambedkar in the early hours of December 6^th, came the news of demise of Nelson Mandela, the father of ‘modern’ South Africa. World over, there is a grief yet Africans are celebrating his life. Amidst this pouring grief is another gimmickry of the western powers who are now canonizing Nelson Mandela today for their own benefits and ignoring their vast track record of violation of human rights of the people in Africa and elsewhere.

A common point of the tributes emerged is that Mandela was great because he did not believe in ‘retribution’. He was for ‘reconciliation’ and is father of a ‘united’ South Africa. I heard President Obama’s speech at White House converting Mandela as his icon and maintaining that his first ‘political action’ was fight against apartheid. The British Prime Minister David Cameroon went a step ahead saying the ‘light has gone’. Mandela was a man of reconciliation said his former tormentor FW D Clerk who shared the Nobel Peace Prize along with him.

In India the prime minister and commentators lost no time in describing Mandela as their friend and ‘inspired’ by Gandhi. The President, Prime Minister and all were in unison proud that Mandela learnt so much from ‘Gandhi’. It is other matter that Indian political class learnt little from Gandhi except in manipulating things and distorting the facts.

Let us try to recapture some of the historical facts of Mandela’s life before analyzing his politics and life. He was first arrested in 1955 along with 156 activists. Later he was sentenced to life imprisonment in June 1964. The struggle for life and dignity of the majority black population continued and African National Congress was their legitimate representative.

It is not mythological story that the American, British and rest of the western governments had no shame in supporting the racist South African regime till 1986. Mandela for them was a terrorist and ANC a terrorist organization. In fact US Congress passed Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act in 1986 against the veto of President Ronald Reagan who termed ANC as terrorist organization. Dick Chaney, American Vice President was a member of American Congress and voted against the bill. The ruling Republican Party was against the bill which was putting some stricter restrictions against the apartheid regime of South Africa. Chaney is not unhappy for what he did in 1986. Mrs Margret Thatcher and President Reagan have openly supported the racist P.W.Botha regime of South Africa against the wishes of international community. It is a fact that the same ‘champions’ of human rights have no shame in defending the illegitimate government of Israel and its discriminatory attitude towards the Palestinians.

In February 1990 Mandela was released from the prison after lots of pressure and realization in the western world that it was impossible to stop violence and retribution in South Africa. The darker side is that in the name of ‘reconciliation’ a lot of things have happened which can say that ‘political’ South Africa may be led by the blacks but economic power remains in the hands of white minority and somewhere Mandela was unable to challenge that. One can see in sports and other sectors too, there is little change in Africa as far as representation of blacks is concern. The African cricket team still consists of a majority of white minority players. One does not know whether blacks have got fair representation in the government services and power structure but one of the biggest ‘victory’ of the minority white regime was that the ‘reconciliation’ was done without ‘legitimate’ ‘land reforms’ and banking and financial institutions of South Africa remained solidly and powerfully in the hands of minority white community.

Mandela was definitely a revolutionary influenced with communist ideology. He had got support from all those regimes who were fighting against US hegemony. Countries like Cuba supported the movement for the rights of blacks and that is why Mandela’s first invite was to Fidel Castro to visit to Africa. In an interview he said, ‘

“From its earliest days, the Cuban Revolution has also been a source of
inspiration to all freedom-loving people. We admire the sacrifices of the Cuban people in maintaining their independence and sovereignty in the face of the vicious imperialist-orquestrated campaign to destroy the impressive gain made in the Cuban Revolution. … Long live the Cuban Revolution. Long live comrade Fidel Castro.”

In fact after his becoming president of South Africa, Mandela was categorical in his opposition to Israel and war in Iraq. He condemned it. He supported Palastinian demand for their homeland and said,’

“Israel should withdraw from all the areas which it won from the Arabs in 1967, and in particular Israel should withdraw completely from the Golan Heights, from south Lebanon and from the West Bank.”

For many in the West, these are difficult points and they do not expect Mandela who was now absolutely ‘fixed’ in Western ‘democracies’ to support Saddam or have any relationship with Castro regimes. But when the outpouring started today, western commentators completely ignored Mandela’s ideological tilts.

Though, it is not that Mandela changed according to western framework yet the influence was visible in the later years. Perhaps when you participate in power structure it coopt you. Mandela became a ‘statesman’ without fulfilling his party’s agenda. The blacks of South Africa still revere him yet the reality is that the ‘freedom’ has not got them much except the ‘political participation’. Is it not irony that when people seek justice they are fired and killed by the police?

In the new set-up of Africa when Mandela was being canonized and glorified to maximum hiding the western hypocrisy and double standard about human rights and democracy, the person who stood with him and took his battle further in his absence, his partner Winnie was villainised. In a revealing interview to Nadira Naipaul, in March 2010, she said, ‘

"This name Mandela is an albatross around the necks of my family. You all must realise that Mandela was not the only man who suffered. There were many others, hundreds who languished in prison and died. Many unsung and unknown heroes of the struggle, and there were others in the leadership too, like poor Steve Biko, who died of the beatings, horribly all alone. Mandela did go to prison and he went in there as a burning young revolutionary. But look what came out," she said, looking to the writer. He said nothing but listened.

It is hard to knock a living legend. Only a wife, a lover or a mistress has that privilege. Only they are privy to the intimate inner man, I thought.

"Mandela let us down. He agreed to a bad deal for the blacks. Economically, we are still on the outside. The economy is very much 'white'. It has a few token blacks, but so many who gave their life in the struggle have died unrewarded."

She was pained. Her uncreased brown face had lost the softness.

"I cannot forgive him for going to receive the Nobel [Peace Prize in 1993] with his jailer [FW] de Klerk. Hand in hand they went. Do you think de Klerk released him from the goodness of his heart? He had to. The times dictated it, the world had changed, and our struggle was not a flash in the pan, it was bloody to say the least and we had given rivers of blood. I had kept it alive with every means at my disposal".

We could believe that. The world-famous images flashed before our eyes and I am sure hers. The burning tyres - Winnie endorsed the necklacing of collaborators in a speech in 1985 ("with our boxes of matches and our necklaces we shall liberate this country") - the stoning, the bullets, the terrible deaths of "informers". Her often bloodthirsty rhetoric has marred her reputation.

"Look at this Truth and Reconciliation charade. He should never have agreed to it." Again her anger was focused on Mandela. "What good does the truth do? How does it help anyone to know where and how their loved ones were killed or buried? That Bishop Tutu who turned it all into a religious circus came here," she said pointing to an empty chair in the distance.

"He had the cheek to tell me to appear. I told him a few home truths. I told him that he and his other like-minded cretins were only sitting here because of our struggle and me. Because of the things I and people like me had done to get freedom."

Winnie’s pain has to be understood. She was sounding bitter but then it is a reality when friends part ways, when you see the one become larger than life while other colleagues are painted as villain then what can we expect? Except for Mandela, most of the ANC team was relegated to nothingness and those who were assertive were projected negatively by the western media. Can we truly say that South Africa is a country of unity at the moment? The lofty ideals of ‘forgiveness’ as being hailed by Clintons and Obamas need to be asked to those who have witnessed those humiliation of living life pushed as slaves.  I know Winnie was charged with murders, retribution, frauds and what not but none can deny her commitment to the cause of her people and her struggle in building up organization with other people in the absence of Mandela. After Mandela was released, she was sidelined and it is certain that a person who commits herself so much feel bitter which the interview clearly reflected.

The double standards are visible. You glorify a person because he has been fixed into your ‘democratic’ ‘tolerant’ model. So, you are great because you have ‘forgiven’ the tyrants, the democratic ones, who left no stone unturned to kill you and your ‘violence’. ‘We’ are opposed to ‘violence’ they would say without giving any alternatives to those who suffers in indignity and humiliation daily. Yes, violence does not mean the P.Botha regime was killing the blacks, firing upon them when they were raising issues of their human rights. Yes, ‘slavery’ is not violence perhaps and that was you can bring Gadhafi to law books, kill Saddam Hussein for violating human rights of the people but whether it is Yitzhak Rabin or FW D Klerk you baptize them through your Nobel Prizes and the entire ‘past’ is ‘forgiven’. In this battle the Western regimes have won but they have actually created differences among the communities who have been oppressed. Whether Mandela or Yasser Arafat, people of both South Africa and Palestine felt betrayed as their dream lands still eludes them.

Many of the Western commentators are still not happy with Mandela as they charge him of befriending Fidel Castro, Gadhafi and others. How much adjustment would they like once you are in power? Yes, you want ‘reconciliation’ and not retribution but is it possible to talk about ‘reconciliation’ without justice. If that is true then should we say that has happened in South Africa? Have the heart melt? How should people forget the inexplicable wounds that have been inflicted on them over a period of time? Why the racist regimes actions have gone unpunished? You punished Pinochet of Chile, executed Saddam and Ghadafi. You got Nazib killed even though by the Talibanis but you want forgiveness for a regime that violated all norms of human values and governance of modern day.

The Indian hypocrisy is much bigger than the Western World. Though it was Nehru who stood clear in his condemnation of the apartheid regime of South Africa, it would be highly unjust to say that we did enough to eliminate that regime in Africa. We are we proud of? To hide our own hidden apartheid, we can speak volumes on Africa but not allow our own people to power structure. The hatred that exists in India today clearly reflects even in the tribute to Mandela.

Leaders after leaders and speakers after speakers have mentioned Mandela that he was influenced by Gandhian values. One does not know what Gandhi did for the toiling masses of Africa. Even when Gandhi was in Africa, his struggle was not really for the blacks of Africa but for the Indian community there, which was mostly businessmen Gujaratis who actually remain dominant in a large part of Africa and who as many people allege are no less racist and casteist than their white counterparts.

Secondly, India is home to a system which is much bigger and more discriminatory than Africa. Over 160 million people in India suffer from hidden apartheid which has divine sanction and constitutional framework has not been able to protect those rights which are violated every day. Yes, Mandela came to India in 1990, a year which was the most turbulent in the history of independent India. A year in which the most marginalized got right to participation in governance structure, a long standing demand of reservation for the OBCs was fulfilled. It was a year when a government honored the father of Indian constitution with the highest honor of Bharat Ratna. It was along with Baba Saheb Ambedkar, Nelson Mandela also was awarded Bharat Ratna by the V P Singh government. Hence these two icons are entirely different in the entire list of Bharat Ratnas which has always been used by power elite to promote their own people. For the first time, we felt that Bharat Ratna deserving went to right people.

Mandela died just in the intervening night of 5^th and 6^th December. None of our commentators could find similarities with Ambedkar who fought singlehandedly the battles for the rights of Dalits in India who suffer similar prejudices and discrimination in India. He appreciated Gandhi as it is a ritual for every head of a state or a leader to appreciate Gandhi and Nehru as they are part of power structure now. There are awards and ceremonies in their names. If Mandela had time to read Ambedkar, I am sure, he would have appreciated his struggle. I don’t know how much he would talk about ‘forgiveness’ and ‘large-heartedness’. I am amused why the ‘forgiveness’ and ‘large-heartedness’ is expected from the victims. When there is laws then why not take all these action to law and human rights bodies? Can ‘forgiveness’ and ‘large-heartedness’ undo historical wrongs which the parent systems of our societies have inflicted upon the oppressed masses? If not then what is the remedy for that? If the black population in South Africa still suffers and Dalits in India are still asking for basic human dignity then what is the meaning of the so called ‘transfer of power’ and ‘inclusive democracy’. The fact is the power elite have very well manipulated this ‘inclusive’ democracy to validate on their ‘exclusive’ rights over our natural resources, our finances and our power structure.

Mandela is gone and he will always remain there. It is essential that we do not ‘deify’ him. Let there be a critical analysis of his legacy so that the movement that he launched is not stuck in the din of ‘forgiveness’ forever.