Blast in Goa
Ram Puniyani
Goa, the paradise for tourists, witnessed a bomb kept in a scooter going off on the eve of Divali (17th Oct 2009) in Margao. It killed Malgonda Patil and seriously injured Yogesh Naik. Another bomb was detected in Sancoale in a truck carrying 40 youth for Narkasur competition. Interestingly Narkasur day, one of the five festivals of Divali, is celebrated in Goa on a big scale. Sanatana Sanstha, to which both the activists belong, is opposed to Narkasur festival on the ground that it is celebration of evil. The second aim of this blast was to create communal tension in Margao, which has a history of communal violence. Fortunately, the bomb went off before being planted in the crowded place and so the casualty was less.
This is the same Sanatan Sanstha, which came to light in the context of a blast which occurred in Gadkari Ragayatan in Thane on 4th June 2008, this had injured seven people. In one of the few cases of success in investigating such cases in Maharashtra or anywhere for that matter, the Anti Terrorist Squad (ATS) of Police, succeeded in nabbing the culprits, against whom cases are going on still. It was a clear case of involvement of Hindu Right wing organizations involved in a case of terrorism. The culprits belonged to Hindu Janjagaran Samiti (HJS), an outfit of Sanatana Sanstha, whose one of the ashrams is based in Panvel near Mumbai. These culprits were also involved in other blasts, in Vashi, Panvel and Ratnagiri.
In Thane the blasts were done to protest against the play Amhi Pachpute, a satirical play on Mahabharata. The allegation was that the play insults Hindu Gods. The earlier blast in Panvel was in a theater where the film Jodha Akbar was being screened. In this film the Hindu princess is married to Akbar, a Muslim king, and that is regarded by these outfits as insult to Hindu religion.
Sanatan Sanstha founded by Dr. Jayant Balaji Athwale is inspired by the political ideology of Savarkar of Hindu Mahasabha and Hedgewar of RSS. It has branches spread all over, including one in Panvel near Mumbai, while its head office is in Ramnathi in Goa. In earlier Thane and nearby blasts also all the accused belonged to this organization. Sanatan Sanstha says it has nothing to do with the blasts, despite the fact that those involved were members of the organization. Police is investigating the links of these accused with the recent Miraj Sangli riots in Maharashtra on the eve of elections (2009).
The same organization also brings out a paper called Sanatan Prabhat, carrying the ideas of Hindu Rashtra, and propagating against minorities. Since the last overt action from this organization, no serious action has been taken against this organization, despite Maharashtra ATS asking for a ban on this organization. Now it surfaces that Goa transport miniter Dhavalikar’s wife Jyoti is also associated with this organization. It is again same organization which campaigned forcefully against the screening of M.F. Hussein’s film 'Through the eyes of a painter', due to which the screening of the film in the Goa Film Festival held in November 2008 was shelved.
One recalls that starting from April 2006, many acts of blasts done by the RSS associates, Bajrang Dal, Sadhvi Pragya group etc. came to light. The pattern of these was to target the mosque at time when the crowd of Muslims is maximum there, especially on the Jumma, Friday afternoon namaz (prayer). In case of Sanatan Sanstha associates the blasts so far seems to be taking place to protest against something which they don’t approve of, staging of play Amhi Pachpute, screening of Film Jodha Akbar to here in Goa the celebration of Narkasur festival. The Hindutva related terror seems to be having two types of operations, from which they can be demarcated. And so within the Hindutva inspired terror groups these two clear cut demarcations need to be understood.
What is strikingly painful is the police and media response to such events. One knows that in Bajrang Dal- Sadhvi Pragya variety of terrorism starting from Nanded to Malegaon, the investigation has been lukewarm and slow. Initially the investigators refused to believe that Hindu Right wing groups can be part of terror acts. It is only after Hemant Karkare’e immaculate investigation unearthing the role of Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur, Dayananad Pande and company that it was taken with some seriousness. One recalls Karkare having stated that he has collected all the evidence against Sadhvi group. Despite that why the investigation is so slow?
One also recalls that while doing this investigation, Karkare was under immense pressure, he was called Deshdrohi (anti National) etc. His pain and anguish went to the extent that he shared this with a senior police officer, Julio Rebeiro, who in turn correctly advised him to continue doing his work with same degree of professionalism. It is same Karkare who got killed in the 26/11 terrorist attack in Mumbai prompting the then Minorities Affairs minister A.R. Antuley to state that there may be something more than meets the eye in the murder of Karkare. Will the truth ever come out?
When any blast takes place, and what are popularly called ‘Jihadi terrorists’ are suspected, the newspapers generally devote front page banner headlines, with all details and suspicions spelt out day after day. In cases related to Nanded types or the ones related to Hindu Jagran Samiti type, the coverage is relegated to small columns in the back pages. The visual media which generally carries non-stop running commentary around such an event is now muted when it comes to Hindutva inspired terror.
Abhay Vartak, the spokesperson of Hindu Sanatan Sansthan said that his organization has nothing to do with these blasts. He went on to say that talk of his organization being part of it and so banning it, is meant to defame his organization. But still the problem remains, those who have done it are part of his organization. Why they are regularly involved in it, in personal capacity or as organization is a question which needs to be answered? What they preach, teach, indoctrinate due to which the terrorists are mushrooming in his Ashram needs to be investigated.
A terrorist is a terrorist. To mete out different treatments to them according to their religion is a product of biased minds and distorted social common sense, which needs to be overcome to strive for justice.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Saturday, October 17, 2009
UN Anti Caste Charter -
UN Anti-Caste Charter: Annihilation of Caste
Ram Puniyani
The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) held in Geneva (September 2009) deliberated on the recognition of caste as race. It proposed to ensure that descent and work based discriminations need to be fought against at global level. Nearly 200 million people all over the World are victims of such discriminations, which are associated with notion of purity, pollution and practices of untouchability. These are deeply rooted in our society and have also assumed cultural forms. India so far has been taking the stand that caste issues should not be internationalized as caste is not race and it is our internal matter. On this issue, earlier Nepal, a Hindu Kingdom, also was toeing similar line. With overthrow of Hindu Kingdom and coming in of democracy, Nepal has come to take the stand that caste based discriminations are akin to race based one’s and so international efforts need to be thought of to supplement the national efforts. India still is trying to hide its underbelly, which is quite unfortunate.
There are two types of pressures on India currently. The Human Rights activists are urging that India should take leadership in ensuring that UN norms are brought up, caste recognized as race and the caste discrimination should invite censures from UN as well. On the other hand BJP spokesperson Ravi Shanker Prasad stated that India should oppose such a move as that will involve UN sanctions if such violations take place in India. He went to say this internationalizing the issue of caste is a failure of India’s foreign policy. At the same time we read that dalits were beaten up (15th Oct 2009) while trying to enter temple in Nagapattinam, Tamil Nadu. This is a matter of great shame. This temple entry was part of several such programs planned to ensure that dalits are not discriminated against in temples. We recall that nearly eight decades earlier Dr. Ambedkar also met a similar fate when he organized Kalaram Temple agitation on the issue of Dalits entry into temples. How little things have changed after such a lapse of time!
In consequence, Nepal has been the first country in South Asia, where untouchability has been traditionally practiced, to articulate its opposition to those abysmal practices in a very strong manner at International level as well. UNHRC document is proposing a regional and international mechanism, UN and its organs are to complement national efforts to combat caste discrimination. It proposes to equate all discrimination on the basis of caste occupation and descent as violation of Human rights. India’s opposition to this is shocking despite an earlier (2006) statement by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, which compared untouchability to apartheid. It seems that the state machinery has elements that are deliberately tilting the policies in this retrograde direction. BJP’s opposition to the UN Human rights efforts is quite understandable, as BJP politics is based around the goal of Hindu Rashtra. In all the concepts of religious nationalism, based on any religion for that matter, there is a neat division between rights and duties. Rights are for elite dominant sections and duties are for the downtrodden! So as per that human rights for dalits and women are unthinkable. But how come Manmohan Singh who equated untouchabilty with apartheid is keeping quiet on this?
Despite the provisions enshrined in our constitution and various prevalent laws the practice of untouchability, caste based discriminations do persist. There are also political tendencies, which want to undo the affirmative action directed to uplift those discriminated due to caste. In India today various theories are doing rounds as to the origin of the caste. Many of these are mere propaganda of vested political interests in the guise of theories.
It is being propagated that caste system came into being due to the invasion of Muslim Kings, who were out to convert the local people by sword. According to this those Hindus who were very proud of their religion escaped to forests, resulting in their social down slide and so the caste system came into being. The other such Hindus who opposed their conversion were forced to clean the toilets of Muslim kings and elite. Due to this, caste system came in and untouchability became a norm! These ‘theories’ of caste system are merely a figment of ‘politically necessary’ imaginations, not based on any historical scholarship or deeper social understanding of those times.
Some of the more serious theories revolve around Aryan-Dravid race theories, some around Marxist class theory of division of labor. About the Aryan-Dravid theory of caste, recently Genome studies have ruled out any water tight Aryan-Dravid divide, as there is unrecognizable mixture. Aryans took some as Dasas, but later intermixing was very extensive to be able to maintain race boundaries. As far as class theories, division of labor, Ambedkars’s comments are very apt, caste is not a division of labor, it is a division of laborers.
The origin of caste is much more complex. Ambedkar in his various contributions presents highly nuanced theory of caste origin. Two of his books, ‘Who were the Shudras?’ and ‘Untouchables’ deal with it. His ‘Revolution and Counter Revolution in Ancient India’ also throws light on the topic. Ambedkar rejects the race theory to a great extent. As per him caste is a social division of people, created by ideological and religious factors. The concept of caste can traced to first Millennium BC. Let’s remember here that Muslim kings’ influence in India began around eleventh century only.
Multiple factors operated in converting the locally organized tribes into castes. The process was not sudden and went on getting rigid over a period of time. The factors converting these local tribes into caste entities were, coming of Aryans and Brahminical ideology. The Aryans who came here were divided loosely into three groups, warriors; priests and trader-farmers. The Dasas were added up here in India. Over a period of time this loose arrangement became birth based and tribes in local areas got transformed into fixed endogamous groups, belonging to a particular caste, performing a fixed economic function. This in turn created a social hierarchy between castes. By second century AD its contours are very marked.
The Vedic period is a one of Varna. Purush Sukta of Rig Veda tells us that Lord Brahma created four varnas from the body of Virat Purush. With coming of Buddhism, Brahmanical values of Varna got challenged and were not adhered to. This resulted in the betterment of condition of Shudra and women. This period is followed by the period of Manu Smriti (2nd Century AD) where Varna gets converted in to caste, with consequent downgrading of shudras and women.
The Muslim Kings who ruled areas of the country did not disturb the local social arrangements. As a matter of fact they had many associates and advisors, who were Hindus and they were also part of top echelons of administration and army during this period. Two other phenomena took place during this period. One, Indian caste system affected Muslim community as well, because of which there came into being castes amongst Muslim community, Ashraf; Azlaf and Arzal, quiet akin to the caste hierarchy in Hindu society. Two, some low caste Hindus tried to escape the Brahminical tyranny by embracing Islam under the influence of Sufi saints. Bhakti tradition also talked against caste system. Most of the Bhakti saints themselves were from low caste.
The period of freedom movement, in contrast, is a period of the beginning of processes demanding the equality of caste and gender. Movement for Indian nationalism was accompanied by these values while the politics based on Muslim Nationalism and Hindu nationalism, had not much to do with these social processes. Low caste Muslims and Hindus both kept aloof from Religious nationalism and followed the concept of composite Indian nationalism. We see the contrast that the protagonists of equality for Shudras burn Manusmriti, the codification of caste and gender hierarchy, while the one’s based on religious nationalism called for ancient glories when Manu Smriti was ruling the roost. Some of them (Deen Dayal Upadhyay) went on to state that different varnas are like different limbs of the body politic of the society, needed for proper equilibrium in society.
Today sixty years after Independence and coming into being of Indian Constitution, the prevalence of untouchability and caste practices are a matter of shame for us. It is time we intensify our own efforts to eradicate it and join the global efforts to end this carry over from our past.
--
Ram Puniyani
The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) held in Geneva (September 2009) deliberated on the recognition of caste as race. It proposed to ensure that descent and work based discriminations need to be fought against at global level. Nearly 200 million people all over the World are victims of such discriminations, which are associated with notion of purity, pollution and practices of untouchability. These are deeply rooted in our society and have also assumed cultural forms. India so far has been taking the stand that caste issues should not be internationalized as caste is not race and it is our internal matter. On this issue, earlier Nepal, a Hindu Kingdom, also was toeing similar line. With overthrow of Hindu Kingdom and coming in of democracy, Nepal has come to take the stand that caste based discriminations are akin to race based one’s and so international efforts need to be thought of to supplement the national efforts. India still is trying to hide its underbelly, which is quite unfortunate.
There are two types of pressures on India currently. The Human Rights activists are urging that India should take leadership in ensuring that UN norms are brought up, caste recognized as race and the caste discrimination should invite censures from UN as well. On the other hand BJP spokesperson Ravi Shanker Prasad stated that India should oppose such a move as that will involve UN sanctions if such violations take place in India. He went to say this internationalizing the issue of caste is a failure of India’s foreign policy. At the same time we read that dalits were beaten up (15th Oct 2009) while trying to enter temple in Nagapattinam, Tamil Nadu. This is a matter of great shame. This temple entry was part of several such programs planned to ensure that dalits are not discriminated against in temples. We recall that nearly eight decades earlier Dr. Ambedkar also met a similar fate when he organized Kalaram Temple agitation on the issue of Dalits entry into temples. How little things have changed after such a lapse of time!
In consequence, Nepal has been the first country in South Asia, where untouchability has been traditionally practiced, to articulate its opposition to those abysmal practices in a very strong manner at International level as well. UNHRC document is proposing a regional and international mechanism, UN and its organs are to complement national efforts to combat caste discrimination. It proposes to equate all discrimination on the basis of caste occupation and descent as violation of Human rights. India’s opposition to this is shocking despite an earlier (2006) statement by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, which compared untouchability to apartheid. It seems that the state machinery has elements that are deliberately tilting the policies in this retrograde direction. BJP’s opposition to the UN Human rights efforts is quite understandable, as BJP politics is based around the goal of Hindu Rashtra. In all the concepts of religious nationalism, based on any religion for that matter, there is a neat division between rights and duties. Rights are for elite dominant sections and duties are for the downtrodden! So as per that human rights for dalits and women are unthinkable. But how come Manmohan Singh who equated untouchabilty with apartheid is keeping quiet on this?
Despite the provisions enshrined in our constitution and various prevalent laws the practice of untouchability, caste based discriminations do persist. There are also political tendencies, which want to undo the affirmative action directed to uplift those discriminated due to caste. In India today various theories are doing rounds as to the origin of the caste. Many of these are mere propaganda of vested political interests in the guise of theories.
It is being propagated that caste system came into being due to the invasion of Muslim Kings, who were out to convert the local people by sword. According to this those Hindus who were very proud of their religion escaped to forests, resulting in their social down slide and so the caste system came into being. The other such Hindus who opposed their conversion were forced to clean the toilets of Muslim kings and elite. Due to this, caste system came in and untouchability became a norm! These ‘theories’ of caste system are merely a figment of ‘politically necessary’ imaginations, not based on any historical scholarship or deeper social understanding of those times.
Some of the more serious theories revolve around Aryan-Dravid race theories, some around Marxist class theory of division of labor. About the Aryan-Dravid theory of caste, recently Genome studies have ruled out any water tight Aryan-Dravid divide, as there is unrecognizable mixture. Aryans took some as Dasas, but later intermixing was very extensive to be able to maintain race boundaries. As far as class theories, division of labor, Ambedkars’s comments are very apt, caste is not a division of labor, it is a division of laborers.
The origin of caste is much more complex. Ambedkar in his various contributions presents highly nuanced theory of caste origin. Two of his books, ‘Who were the Shudras?’ and ‘Untouchables’ deal with it. His ‘Revolution and Counter Revolution in Ancient India’ also throws light on the topic. Ambedkar rejects the race theory to a great extent. As per him caste is a social division of people, created by ideological and religious factors. The concept of caste can traced to first Millennium BC. Let’s remember here that Muslim kings’ influence in India began around eleventh century only.
Multiple factors operated in converting the locally organized tribes into castes. The process was not sudden and went on getting rigid over a period of time. The factors converting these local tribes into caste entities were, coming of Aryans and Brahminical ideology. The Aryans who came here were divided loosely into three groups, warriors; priests and trader-farmers. The Dasas were added up here in India. Over a period of time this loose arrangement became birth based and tribes in local areas got transformed into fixed endogamous groups, belonging to a particular caste, performing a fixed economic function. This in turn created a social hierarchy between castes. By second century AD its contours are very marked.
The Vedic period is a one of Varna. Purush Sukta of Rig Veda tells us that Lord Brahma created four varnas from the body of Virat Purush. With coming of Buddhism, Brahmanical values of Varna got challenged and were not adhered to. This resulted in the betterment of condition of Shudra and women. This period is followed by the period of Manu Smriti (2nd Century AD) where Varna gets converted in to caste, with consequent downgrading of shudras and women.
The Muslim Kings who ruled areas of the country did not disturb the local social arrangements. As a matter of fact they had many associates and advisors, who were Hindus and they were also part of top echelons of administration and army during this period. Two other phenomena took place during this period. One, Indian caste system affected Muslim community as well, because of which there came into being castes amongst Muslim community, Ashraf; Azlaf and Arzal, quiet akin to the caste hierarchy in Hindu society. Two, some low caste Hindus tried to escape the Brahminical tyranny by embracing Islam under the influence of Sufi saints. Bhakti tradition also talked against caste system. Most of the Bhakti saints themselves were from low caste.
The period of freedom movement, in contrast, is a period of the beginning of processes demanding the equality of caste and gender. Movement for Indian nationalism was accompanied by these values while the politics based on Muslim Nationalism and Hindu nationalism, had not much to do with these social processes. Low caste Muslims and Hindus both kept aloof from Religious nationalism and followed the concept of composite Indian nationalism. We see the contrast that the protagonists of equality for Shudras burn Manusmriti, the codification of caste and gender hierarchy, while the one’s based on religious nationalism called for ancient glories when Manu Smriti was ruling the roost. Some of them (Deen Dayal Upadhyay) went on to state that different varnas are like different limbs of the body politic of the society, needed for proper equilibrium in society.
Today sixty years after Independence and coming into being of Indian Constitution, the prevalence of untouchability and caste practices are a matter of shame for us. It is time we intensify our own efforts to eradicate it and join the global efforts to end this carry over from our past.
--
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Is it a crime to be born a Muslim in India?
Is it a Crime to be born a Muslim in India?
Ram Puniyani
The rising tide of communal violence from the decade of 1980 has consolidated the communal politics, politics in the name of religion. The party riding on the chariot of religious nationalism became the second largest party and tasted power at center for six long years and is now entrenched in few states and is knocking at the door of power in few other states. The hope that its recent defeat in Lok Sabha elections will reduce the impact of communal politics in society or will ensure that all communities can breathe the air of civil rights and equal citizenship rights with ease, seems to be like distant drums!
The impact of the rise of this politics and accompanying effect on minorities has resulted in worsening their lot. This downward slide in the condition of minorities is very obvious, is going from bad to worse, to worst. It has resulted in the conditions for minorities where they have to live in fear, alienation and the impact of constant profiling in different walks of life. This communal politics has been talking of Hindu nation, has been spreading hate against minorities, against Muslims in particular. The Muslim community has been the major target of attack and has been bearing a huge brunt of the divisive politics being spearheaded by RSS, its progeny and by those influenced by the RSS ideology. They are not only there in the state machinery and media but also in other crucial spots of Indian social, economic and political life. The worsening plight of Muslim community got reconfirmed in the recently held national meet on ‘What it means to be a Muslim in India Today’, organized by Anhad in Delhi (Oct 3-5).
The meeting was addressed by the victims and social activists working in the area of human rights particularly of minorities. The pain and anguish of the Muslim community was heart rending, coming through different narrations of illegal arrests, tortures, detentions and adverse judgments. The latest trick is to implicate the Muslim youth in multiple cases in different states. This will ensure their being behind the bars for good. The communal violence which has broken the back of the Indian community is being supplemented by the intense and blind police action against innocent Muslim youth, in the name of terror attacks. While the communal violence is now being orchestrated at low intensity and is scattered far and wide, in the post 9/11 period another front for torturing the community has been opened. Here the modus oprendi is simple enough, there is ‘Intelligence’ tip and that makes our efficient police machinery to arrest the Muslim youth, being Muslim is the major ‘tip’ for arresting and torturing innocent youth by the guardians of law. Many a youth in the middle of their education for professional lives face immense obstacles, their illegal arrests are never compensated for and nor are they supported to complete their education despite being proved innocents.
There had been many such arrests followed by all sort of illegal steps by the police. Using cars without number plates, taking victims blindfolded to farm houses for third degree tortures are new addition to the ‘efficient methods’ of the police machinery. There are enough grounds of doubts in Batla House encounter, but it will not be taken up for honest investigation. The argument to avoid honest investigation is that it will demoralize the police force. Can we have such a police force whose morale depends hiding truth?
Following Mecca Masjid blast, there was a shooting by the police which killed more people than the number killed by blast. The pretext was that the crowd was menacing, which it was not. Truth of Ishrat Jahan case is out in the open but the perpetrators will remain in the seats of power unscathed, barring an odd official living in jail. While such enthusiasm in arresting Muslim youth is there for all to see, those arrested by Hemant Karkare’s ATS in Malegaon blast case, are currently being treated with kid gloves. The apprehension is that these guilty gang against whom evidence was collected by late Hemant Karkare may not get the punishment it deserves.
The families battered by such brutal police actions and the families shattered by communal violence are on the streets unattended, marginalized and neglected by society and state. Those Muslims having successful business have been targeted to ensure breaking their economic backbone. This not only in Gujarat but also in other BJP ruled states. This economically marginalized community is practically boycotted by financial institutions, telephone companies and other. There are many cases where the community is being denied space for graveyards, which are either being taken away or not allowed to expand where there is need for more space. The plight of Shabana Azmi or Imraan Hashmi not getting the house in desired locality is not isolated; this phenomenon is becoming more widespread. The walls of separation along religious community lines are becoming stronger. The Sachar Commission and the Prime Minister’s 15 point program remain a showpiece for purposes best known to the state!
The myths and stereotypes in the media and social space are very much there. The large section of school text-books reinforces the stereotypes and myths about the community. So where does all this lead us? In a democracy, in a secular state the minorities should be provided safety and dignity irrespective of their religion. The present condition of Muslims in India is nothing but abysmal from the point of view of security, economic condition and social life. A large section has started feeling the deprivations in a very painful manner.
One recalls under the domination of Brahmanical values, caste based exclusionary social-political-system, the caste of Shudras was systematically denied the life of dignity and made to live in subjugation and ghettoization. The efforts of ‘Brahmanical ideology based politics’, the one of RSS and its progeny, is achieving the same pattern with some difference. Now Muslims are being reduced to second class citizens. This is precisely what RSS wants, this is what is coming to be practiced at all the levels in the country. RSS progeny being in power or out of it does not matter as far as the life of Muslim community is concerned. The RSS workers and ideology have infiltrated the ‘social common sense’ through media and education. It has infiltrated the state machinery. The limit of this can be seen that RSS controlled Bhonsla Military School in Nasik is supplying large number of recruits for Indian army one of them being Lt Col Prasad Shrikant Purohit, an accomplice of Pragya Singh Thakur, alleged culprits of Malegaon blast. If RSS, a fascist organization wrapping its politics in the cloak of Hindu religion, swaymsevaks can infiltrate army, which institution in the society is safe from slow communal fascist infiltration? Which institution can be trusted for upholding Indian Constitution?
It is with this gloomy scenario around that many a victims deposing in the meeting said with pain and anguish, “Is it a crime to be born a Muslim in India?”
--
Ram Puniyani
The rising tide of communal violence from the decade of 1980 has consolidated the communal politics, politics in the name of religion. The party riding on the chariot of religious nationalism became the second largest party and tasted power at center for six long years and is now entrenched in few states and is knocking at the door of power in few other states. The hope that its recent defeat in Lok Sabha elections will reduce the impact of communal politics in society or will ensure that all communities can breathe the air of civil rights and equal citizenship rights with ease, seems to be like distant drums!
The impact of the rise of this politics and accompanying effect on minorities has resulted in worsening their lot. This downward slide in the condition of minorities is very obvious, is going from bad to worse, to worst. It has resulted in the conditions for minorities where they have to live in fear, alienation and the impact of constant profiling in different walks of life. This communal politics has been talking of Hindu nation, has been spreading hate against minorities, against Muslims in particular. The Muslim community has been the major target of attack and has been bearing a huge brunt of the divisive politics being spearheaded by RSS, its progeny and by those influenced by the RSS ideology. They are not only there in the state machinery and media but also in other crucial spots of Indian social, economic and political life. The worsening plight of Muslim community got reconfirmed in the recently held national meet on ‘What it means to be a Muslim in India Today’, organized by Anhad in Delhi (Oct 3-5).
The meeting was addressed by the victims and social activists working in the area of human rights particularly of minorities. The pain and anguish of the Muslim community was heart rending, coming through different narrations of illegal arrests, tortures, detentions and adverse judgments. The latest trick is to implicate the Muslim youth in multiple cases in different states. This will ensure their being behind the bars for good. The communal violence which has broken the back of the Indian community is being supplemented by the intense and blind police action against innocent Muslim youth, in the name of terror attacks. While the communal violence is now being orchestrated at low intensity and is scattered far and wide, in the post 9/11 period another front for torturing the community has been opened. Here the modus oprendi is simple enough, there is ‘Intelligence’ tip and that makes our efficient police machinery to arrest the Muslim youth, being Muslim is the major ‘tip’ for arresting and torturing innocent youth by the guardians of law. Many a youth in the middle of their education for professional lives face immense obstacles, their illegal arrests are never compensated for and nor are they supported to complete their education despite being proved innocents.
There had been many such arrests followed by all sort of illegal steps by the police. Using cars without number plates, taking victims blindfolded to farm houses for third degree tortures are new addition to the ‘efficient methods’ of the police machinery. There are enough grounds of doubts in Batla House encounter, but it will not be taken up for honest investigation. The argument to avoid honest investigation is that it will demoralize the police force. Can we have such a police force whose morale depends hiding truth?
Following Mecca Masjid blast, there was a shooting by the police which killed more people than the number killed by blast. The pretext was that the crowd was menacing, which it was not. Truth of Ishrat Jahan case is out in the open but the perpetrators will remain in the seats of power unscathed, barring an odd official living in jail. While such enthusiasm in arresting Muslim youth is there for all to see, those arrested by Hemant Karkare’s ATS in Malegaon blast case, are currently being treated with kid gloves. The apprehension is that these guilty gang against whom evidence was collected by late Hemant Karkare may not get the punishment it deserves.
The families battered by such brutal police actions and the families shattered by communal violence are on the streets unattended, marginalized and neglected by society and state. Those Muslims having successful business have been targeted to ensure breaking their economic backbone. This not only in Gujarat but also in other BJP ruled states. This economically marginalized community is practically boycotted by financial institutions, telephone companies and other. There are many cases where the community is being denied space for graveyards, which are either being taken away or not allowed to expand where there is need for more space. The plight of Shabana Azmi or Imraan Hashmi not getting the house in desired locality is not isolated; this phenomenon is becoming more widespread. The walls of separation along religious community lines are becoming stronger. The Sachar Commission and the Prime Minister’s 15 point program remain a showpiece for purposes best known to the state!
The myths and stereotypes in the media and social space are very much there. The large section of school text-books reinforces the stereotypes and myths about the community. So where does all this lead us? In a democracy, in a secular state the minorities should be provided safety and dignity irrespective of their religion. The present condition of Muslims in India is nothing but abysmal from the point of view of security, economic condition and social life. A large section has started feeling the deprivations in a very painful manner.
One recalls under the domination of Brahmanical values, caste based exclusionary social-political-system, the caste of Shudras was systematically denied the life of dignity and made to live in subjugation and ghettoization. The efforts of ‘Brahmanical ideology based politics’, the one of RSS and its progeny, is achieving the same pattern with some difference. Now Muslims are being reduced to second class citizens. This is precisely what RSS wants, this is what is coming to be practiced at all the levels in the country. RSS progeny being in power or out of it does not matter as far as the life of Muslim community is concerned. The RSS workers and ideology have infiltrated the ‘social common sense’ through media and education. It has infiltrated the state machinery. The limit of this can be seen that RSS controlled Bhonsla Military School in Nasik is supplying large number of recruits for Indian army one of them being Lt Col Prasad Shrikant Purohit, an accomplice of Pragya Singh Thakur, alleged culprits of Malegaon blast. If RSS, a fascist organization wrapping its politics in the cloak of Hindu religion, swaymsevaks can infiltrate army, which institution in the society is safe from slow communal fascist infiltration? Which institution can be trusted for upholding Indian Constitution?
It is with this gloomy scenario around that many a victims deposing in the meeting said with pain and anguish, “Is it a crime to be born a Muslim in India?”
--
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
RSS and Minorities
RSS and Minorities
Ram Puniyani
The new RSS Sarsanghchalak, Mr. Mohan Bhagawat told Minorities (Sept 20, 2009) that they should join RSS and see that ‘our intentions are clear and our behavior is good’. As per him all Muslims in India were Hindus in the past. They have only changed their way of worship, and if they accept this fact there will be no clashes. He told Christians that they should not convert people, as that creates communal violence.
Mr. Bhagwat is partly correct in saying that Muslims have Hindu ancestry. Islam spread in India, by various ways, major being the attempt of Shudras to escape the tyranny of Landlord Brahmin, to quote Swami Vivekananda, "Why amongst the poor of India so many are Mohammedans? It is nonsense to say that they were converted by the sword. It was to gain liberty from Zamindars and Priests..." (Collected Works-Vol 8-Page330). These conversions took place as dalits were not permitted to enter temples so they were visiting the shrines of Sufi saints and under the influence of the Humanistic aspect of Islam they took to Islam. There were other reasons like, anticipation of reward, interaction with Muslims, the least important factor being fear of Muslim kings. So he is partly right that most Muslims have local ancestry.
But is the change of religion mere change of mode of worship or is it a total change in religious belief system? We do recognize that syncretic traditions of Hinduism and Islam have drawn a lot from each other. But as far as Holy book, belief in one God, Allah, belief in Mohammad as the prophet, this is not just a change in mode of worship, it is much broader than that.
So, are there clashes because Muslims deny their ancestry, and culture. By no means! As far as culture is concerned for the extremist elements, for the clergy and for those using religion for politics, the culture is just a subset of elitist version of their religion. For average people culture is a broad category, it is affected by regional factors and by some aspects of religion. A large population of Muslims and Hindus both regarded culture as a meeting and mixing point, while elite traditions look down upon the culture of the ‘other’. In India Muslims and Hindus did live in peace, creating different facets of culture, Music, Poetry, clothes and food habits, architecture and religious traditions. We see Ustad Bismillah Khan creating his wonderful work, devoted to Hindu gods and goddesses while sitting on the pavements of Kashi temples, we see Rahim and Raskhan writing beautiful poetry in devotion of Lord Krishna, we see people taking to jalebi, Biryani and other food items coming from Iran and other places from where Muslims came. We also see the intermixing in the customs, festivals. To delineate a Hindu and Muslim component of our culture was difficult at a point of time. We have the lovely tradition of people from both religions following the teachings of Ramdeo Baba Pir and Satya Pir. We have that great Saint Kabir who was loved by both Muslim and Hindus.
The problem begins with the communal historiography, looking at History through the prism of religion, introduced by British to pursue the policy of divide and rule. This version was picked up by the communal streams of Muslim League and Hindu Mahasabha-RSS, and aided in the communalization of society and rise of communal violence, more so from the decade of 1940s. To think that clashes are there because Muslims deny their common ancestry is wrong. Also Islam is a religion with its own spirituality and to reduce any religion to just a mode of worship is not correct. In post Independence India the clashes were brewed by this communal thinking, by political motivations not because of religions. Those who deny that Sufis are a part of Indian culture, or Urdu is and Indian language or that the contributions of Muslim Kings, poets, artisans, are the one’s who have created divisiveness leading to clashes. Those who deny that Bhakti tradition was part of tradition which was respected by a section of Muslims, or that celebrating Holi, Divali or Muharram and Id is part of Indian culture are the cause of the political thinking which leads to clashes.
Coming to Christians, it is not they came here with the British. Christian community in India is over 1500 years old. While their may be some aggressive proselytizers, mainly the conversions take place because of social interaction and genuine charity work. If conversions were a forced phenomenon, how to explain that there are merely 2.30% Christians in India toady? How do we explain that during last four decades the all India percentage of Christians has fallen down, 1971-2.60%, 1981-2.44%, 1991-2.34% and 2001-2.30%? One concedes that some dalits taking to Christianity may not be getting registered as Christians to keep availing the job reservations, but surely this cannot tilt the population percentage to a very great extent.
Wadhva Commission, which investigated the burning of Pastor Graham Stains by Bajrang Dal’s Dara Sing and is facing the jail term for that, concluded that Pastor Stains was not involved in any work of conversions and that the percentage of Christians in Keonjhar of Manoharpur district in Orissa, did not go up. Even recently the anti Christian violence was launched on the pretext of murder of Swami Laxmananand. It was a clear pretext to scare the Christian missionaries away from the Adivasi areas, where they are involved in the work of education and health care of Adivasis, something which empowers Adivasis. It was a clear pretext as Maoists had owned the murder of Swami.
Most of the organizations at the core of communal politics are manned on one side by Muslim Communalists and on the other by the RSS trained swayamsevaks working and controlling BJP, VHP, Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram or Bajrang Dal. Minorities want a safety, and freedom to follow their own religion. Indian Constitution does give us the liberty to practice and preach our own religion. Also RSS is not the representative of Hindus at large. We have diverse traditions of Hinduism ranging from the one of Gandhi to the other ones which are like those of Bajrang dal etc.
RSS has tried to co-opt and win over sections of minorities for enhancing its agenda. RSS progeny BJP keeps doing it, trying to win minorities, so often for electoral purpose. But over all the minorities have experienced at heavy cost of loosing lives, that RSS is like a wolf trying to put on sheep’s clothing. It is unlikely that after what has been done by its pracharks, Swayamsevaks through its progeny, Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram, Bajrang Dal and vishwa Hindu Parsishad etc. that minorities can ever be fooled by the language being used by Mr. Bhagwat. By now it is also well known that the second Sarsanghchalak of RSS, M. S. Golwalkar had ordained that minorities “the non-Hindu people in Hindustan must either adopt the Hindu culture and language, must learn to respect and revere Hindu religion, must entertain no idea but the glorification of Hindu nation i.e. they must not only give up their attitude of intolerance and ingratitude towards this land and its age old traditions, but must also cultivate the positive attitude of love and devotion instead; in one word, they must cease to be foreigners or may stay in this country wholly subordinated to the Hindu Nation claiming nothing, deserving no privileges far less any preferential treatment, not even citizen’s rights.(We or our Nationhood Defined, 1938, p. 27)
RSS is no representative of Hindus. It stands for values which are opposed to the human rights of weaker sections of society, Dalits, workers, adivasis, women and minorities. It stands for values of birth based hierarchy of caste and gender as ordained in Manu Smriti. Its primary goal is to establish Hindu nation, i.e. nation with primacy of Hindu elite men, rather than the nation envisaged by the Indian people during the freedom movement, the values which are an amalgam of the principles of Bhagat Singh, Ambedkar and Gandhi. One wishes RSS rather than deceiving others, learns the lessons of freedom movement and makes Gandhi’s Hinduism as its base rather than pursuing Godse’s Hinduism. One knows this is a practical impossibility as RSS is the organization of those who are not elected beings; they are self-appointed guardians of Brahmanical Hinduism, who neither represent Hindus nor the Humanistic aspects of Hinduism. Let’s wish RSS clan can be retrained to think as Indians rather than just as Hindus with Brahmanical values!
--
Ram Puniyani
The new RSS Sarsanghchalak, Mr. Mohan Bhagawat told Minorities (Sept 20, 2009) that they should join RSS and see that ‘our intentions are clear and our behavior is good’. As per him all Muslims in India were Hindus in the past. They have only changed their way of worship, and if they accept this fact there will be no clashes. He told Christians that they should not convert people, as that creates communal violence.
Mr. Bhagwat is partly correct in saying that Muslims have Hindu ancestry. Islam spread in India, by various ways, major being the attempt of Shudras to escape the tyranny of Landlord Brahmin, to quote Swami Vivekananda, "Why amongst the poor of India so many are Mohammedans? It is nonsense to say that they were converted by the sword. It was to gain liberty from Zamindars and Priests..." (Collected Works-Vol 8-Page330). These conversions took place as dalits were not permitted to enter temples so they were visiting the shrines of Sufi saints and under the influence of the Humanistic aspect of Islam they took to Islam. There were other reasons like, anticipation of reward, interaction with Muslims, the least important factor being fear of Muslim kings. So he is partly right that most Muslims have local ancestry.
But is the change of religion mere change of mode of worship or is it a total change in religious belief system? We do recognize that syncretic traditions of Hinduism and Islam have drawn a lot from each other. But as far as Holy book, belief in one God, Allah, belief in Mohammad as the prophet, this is not just a change in mode of worship, it is much broader than that.
So, are there clashes because Muslims deny their ancestry, and culture. By no means! As far as culture is concerned for the extremist elements, for the clergy and for those using religion for politics, the culture is just a subset of elitist version of their religion. For average people culture is a broad category, it is affected by regional factors and by some aspects of religion. A large population of Muslims and Hindus both regarded culture as a meeting and mixing point, while elite traditions look down upon the culture of the ‘other’. In India Muslims and Hindus did live in peace, creating different facets of culture, Music, Poetry, clothes and food habits, architecture and religious traditions. We see Ustad Bismillah Khan creating his wonderful work, devoted to Hindu gods and goddesses while sitting on the pavements of Kashi temples, we see Rahim and Raskhan writing beautiful poetry in devotion of Lord Krishna, we see people taking to jalebi, Biryani and other food items coming from Iran and other places from where Muslims came. We also see the intermixing in the customs, festivals. To delineate a Hindu and Muslim component of our culture was difficult at a point of time. We have the lovely tradition of people from both religions following the teachings of Ramdeo Baba Pir and Satya Pir. We have that great Saint Kabir who was loved by both Muslim and Hindus.
The problem begins with the communal historiography, looking at History through the prism of religion, introduced by British to pursue the policy of divide and rule. This version was picked up by the communal streams of Muslim League and Hindu Mahasabha-RSS, and aided in the communalization of society and rise of communal violence, more so from the decade of 1940s. To think that clashes are there because Muslims deny their common ancestry is wrong. Also Islam is a religion with its own spirituality and to reduce any religion to just a mode of worship is not correct. In post Independence India the clashes were brewed by this communal thinking, by political motivations not because of religions. Those who deny that Sufis are a part of Indian culture, or Urdu is and Indian language or that the contributions of Muslim Kings, poets, artisans, are the one’s who have created divisiveness leading to clashes. Those who deny that Bhakti tradition was part of tradition which was respected by a section of Muslims, or that celebrating Holi, Divali or Muharram and Id is part of Indian culture are the cause of the political thinking which leads to clashes.
Coming to Christians, it is not they came here with the British. Christian community in India is over 1500 years old. While their may be some aggressive proselytizers, mainly the conversions take place because of social interaction and genuine charity work. If conversions were a forced phenomenon, how to explain that there are merely 2.30% Christians in India toady? How do we explain that during last four decades the all India percentage of Christians has fallen down, 1971-2.60%, 1981-2.44%, 1991-2.34% and 2001-2.30%? One concedes that some dalits taking to Christianity may not be getting registered as Christians to keep availing the job reservations, but surely this cannot tilt the population percentage to a very great extent.
Wadhva Commission, which investigated the burning of Pastor Graham Stains by Bajrang Dal’s Dara Sing and is facing the jail term for that, concluded that Pastor Stains was not involved in any work of conversions and that the percentage of Christians in Keonjhar of Manoharpur district in Orissa, did not go up. Even recently the anti Christian violence was launched on the pretext of murder of Swami Laxmananand. It was a clear pretext to scare the Christian missionaries away from the Adivasi areas, where they are involved in the work of education and health care of Adivasis, something which empowers Adivasis. It was a clear pretext as Maoists had owned the murder of Swami.
Most of the organizations at the core of communal politics are manned on one side by Muslim Communalists and on the other by the RSS trained swayamsevaks working and controlling BJP, VHP, Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram or Bajrang Dal. Minorities want a safety, and freedom to follow their own religion. Indian Constitution does give us the liberty to practice and preach our own religion. Also RSS is not the representative of Hindus at large. We have diverse traditions of Hinduism ranging from the one of Gandhi to the other ones which are like those of Bajrang dal etc.
RSS has tried to co-opt and win over sections of minorities for enhancing its agenda. RSS progeny BJP keeps doing it, trying to win minorities, so often for electoral purpose. But over all the minorities have experienced at heavy cost of loosing lives, that RSS is like a wolf trying to put on sheep’s clothing. It is unlikely that after what has been done by its pracharks, Swayamsevaks through its progeny, Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram, Bajrang Dal and vishwa Hindu Parsishad etc. that minorities can ever be fooled by the language being used by Mr. Bhagwat. By now it is also well known that the second Sarsanghchalak of RSS, M. S. Golwalkar had ordained that minorities “the non-Hindu people in Hindustan must either adopt the Hindu culture and language, must learn to respect and revere Hindu religion, must entertain no idea but the glorification of Hindu nation i.e. they must not only give up their attitude of intolerance and ingratitude towards this land and its age old traditions, but must also cultivate the positive attitude of love and devotion instead; in one word, they must cease to be foreigners or may stay in this country wholly subordinated to the Hindu Nation claiming nothing, deserving no privileges far less any preferential treatment, not even citizen’s rights.(We or our Nationhood Defined, 1938, p. 27)
RSS is no representative of Hindus. It stands for values which are opposed to the human rights of weaker sections of society, Dalits, workers, adivasis, women and minorities. It stands for values of birth based hierarchy of caste and gender as ordained in Manu Smriti. Its primary goal is to establish Hindu nation, i.e. nation with primacy of Hindu elite men, rather than the nation envisaged by the Indian people during the freedom movement, the values which are an amalgam of the principles of Bhagat Singh, Ambedkar and Gandhi. One wishes RSS rather than deceiving others, learns the lessons of freedom movement and makes Gandhi’s Hinduism as its base rather than pursuing Godse’s Hinduism. One knows this is a practical impossibility as RSS is the organization of those who are not elected beings; they are self-appointed guardians of Brahmanical Hinduism, who neither represent Hindus nor the Humanistic aspects of Hinduism. Let’s wish RSS clan can be retrained to think as Indians rather than just as Hindus with Brahmanical values!
--
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Communalizing History: Shivaji-Afzal Khan
Communalizing History: Shivaji and Afzal Khan
Ram Puniyani
The assembly elections have been declared in Maharashtra, and with this the atmosphere is heating up politically. In this state there have been substantial number of farmer’s suicides, all over there are serious issues related to rising prices, unemployment and other problems of daily life. But it seems that some political parties in Maharashtra are not much concerned about these core issues of society and seem to be more interested in the identity issues emerging from the past. Recently (September 3rd, 2009) tension developed in Miraj, Sangli and neighboring areas during Ganesh festival. This is the major festival of the state. During the festival trouble began with the erection of an arch on the route of Ganesh Visarjan, this arch depicted the slaying of Afzal Khan by Shivaji. Anticipating trouble due to the communal polarization around Shivaji and Afzal Khan, to maintain peace, the police removed the arch. Protesting against this removal of the arch
some Ganesh Mandals decided not to immerse the Ganpati idols till the arch was restored. This is what led to the violence in due course, in which one person died and five got injured.
BJP leadership condemned the Governments’ step of removing the arch. Shiv Sena leader asserted that they will put posters of Shivaji slaying Afzal Khan all over the state and stated that had Shivaji been not there all of us would have been reading Namaz! The state administration did control the situation but since by now lot of emotive appeal has been generated around Shivaji it was an easy job. Few years ago during the previous Parliamentary elections, the same parties had tried to organize the procession to demolish the tomb of Afzal Khan. Fortunately at that time it was brought to people’s notice that this tomb was built by Shivaji himself and the matters came to a rest, but not before it created lot of bad blood. The matters related to Shivaji are very sensitive in Maharashtra, the state administration has even planned to construct the statue of Shivaji in the Arabain sea, costing thousands of crores, from public exchequer, at the cost other
public necessities.
As a matter of fact, Shivaji is popular amongst people, not because he was anti Muslim or worshipper of Cows and Brahmins, but because he reduced the taxation on the poor peasants. Shivaji adopted humane policy in all the aspects of his administration, which did not base itself on the religion. In the recruitment of his soldiers and officers for army and navy, religion was no criterion and more than one third of his army consisted of Muslims. The supreme command of his navy was with Siddi Sambal, and Muslim Siddis were in navy in large numbers. Interestingly his major battles were fought against the Rajput army lead by Raja Jaisingh, who was in the administration of Aurangzeb. When Shivaji was detained at Agra forte, of the two men on whom he relied for his eventual escape, one was a Muslim called Madari Mehtar. His confidential secretary was Maulana Haider Ali and the chief of his cannon division was Ibrahim Gardi. Rustom-e-Jamaan was his bodyguard.
His respect for other religions was very clear and he respected the holy seers like 'Hazarat Baba Yaqut bahut Thorwale', whom he gave the life pension and also he helped Father Ambrose, whose church was under attack in Gujarat. At his capital Raigad, he erected a special mosque for Muslim devotees in front of his palace in the same way that he built the Jagadishwar temple for his own daily worship.
During his military campaigns Shivaji had issued strict instructions to his men and officers that Muslim women and children should not be subjected to maltreatment. Mosques and Dargah's were given due protection. He also ordered that whenever a copy of Koran came into the hands of his men, they should show proper respect to the book and hand it over to a Muslim. The story of his bowing to the daughter-in-law of Bassein's Nawab is well known to all. When she was brought as a part of the loot and offered to him, he respectfully begged her pardon and asked his soldiers to reach her back from the place from where she was forcibly brought in. Shivaji was in no way actuated by any hatred towards people of other religions.
As a matter of fact he had great respect for holy people of all religions. All this goes on to show the values of communal harmony which Shivaji pursued, and that his primary goal was to establish his own kingdom with maximum possible geographical area. To project him as anti-Muslim and anti-Islam is travesty of truth. Neither was Afzal Khan an anti Hindu king. When Shivaji killed Afzal Khan, Afzal Khan’s secretary Krishnaji Bhasker Kulkarni attacked Shivaji with a sword.
Today communal forces are out to ‘use’ Shivaji issue, to communalize the same for their political goals. In Maharashtra, Shivaji Afzal Khan have been projected as Hindu and Muslim kings. From amongst all the possible pictures of Shivaji, why is the one related to Afzal Khan is chosen? One can also show the pictures of his Pratapgadh fort with Afzal Khans tomb in that, one can show Shivaji paying respect to the Mazar of Madari Mehtar, a Muslim prince, who helped him to escape from Agra? The very selection of this picture is to divide the communities along religious lines. Communal interpretation of History, Communal historiography has been the major tool in the arsenal of communal forces. Minorities should not react to such things and try to call for peace with all the communities all the time. Now we are witnessing this pattern of history being used to communalize the society, to create sectarian divides in society. What is needed is to overcome these communal angles, to undermine identity issues, to build the Indian nation. We need to look at historical icons, as kings ruling for power, rather then the representatives of a particular religion.
--
Ram Puniyani
The assembly elections have been declared in Maharashtra, and with this the atmosphere is heating up politically. In this state there have been substantial number of farmer’s suicides, all over there are serious issues related to rising prices, unemployment and other problems of daily life. But it seems that some political parties in Maharashtra are not much concerned about these core issues of society and seem to be more interested in the identity issues emerging from the past. Recently (September 3rd, 2009) tension developed in Miraj, Sangli and neighboring areas during Ganesh festival. This is the major festival of the state. During the festival trouble began with the erection of an arch on the route of Ganesh Visarjan, this arch depicted the slaying of Afzal Khan by Shivaji. Anticipating trouble due to the communal polarization around Shivaji and Afzal Khan, to maintain peace, the police removed the arch. Protesting against this removal of the arch
some Ganesh Mandals decided not to immerse the Ganpati idols till the arch was restored. This is what led to the violence in due course, in which one person died and five got injured.
BJP leadership condemned the Governments’ step of removing the arch. Shiv Sena leader asserted that they will put posters of Shivaji slaying Afzal Khan all over the state and stated that had Shivaji been not there all of us would have been reading Namaz! The state administration did control the situation but since by now lot of emotive appeal has been generated around Shivaji it was an easy job. Few years ago during the previous Parliamentary elections, the same parties had tried to organize the procession to demolish the tomb of Afzal Khan. Fortunately at that time it was brought to people’s notice that this tomb was built by Shivaji himself and the matters came to a rest, but not before it created lot of bad blood. The matters related to Shivaji are very sensitive in Maharashtra, the state administration has even planned to construct the statue of Shivaji in the Arabain sea, costing thousands of crores, from public exchequer, at the cost other
public necessities.
As a matter of fact, Shivaji is popular amongst people, not because he was anti Muslim or worshipper of Cows and Brahmins, but because he reduced the taxation on the poor peasants. Shivaji adopted humane policy in all the aspects of his administration, which did not base itself on the religion. In the recruitment of his soldiers and officers for army and navy, religion was no criterion and more than one third of his army consisted of Muslims. The supreme command of his navy was with Siddi Sambal, and Muslim Siddis were in navy in large numbers. Interestingly his major battles were fought against the Rajput army lead by Raja Jaisingh, who was in the administration of Aurangzeb. When Shivaji was detained at Agra forte, of the two men on whom he relied for his eventual escape, one was a Muslim called Madari Mehtar. His confidential secretary was Maulana Haider Ali and the chief of his cannon division was Ibrahim Gardi. Rustom-e-Jamaan was his bodyguard.
His respect for other religions was very clear and he respected the holy seers like 'Hazarat Baba Yaqut bahut Thorwale', whom he gave the life pension and also he helped Father Ambrose, whose church was under attack in Gujarat. At his capital Raigad, he erected a special mosque for Muslim devotees in front of his palace in the same way that he built the Jagadishwar temple for his own daily worship.
During his military campaigns Shivaji had issued strict instructions to his men and officers that Muslim women and children should not be subjected to maltreatment. Mosques and Dargah's were given due protection. He also ordered that whenever a copy of Koran came into the hands of his men, they should show proper respect to the book and hand it over to a Muslim. The story of his bowing to the daughter-in-law of Bassein's Nawab is well known to all. When she was brought as a part of the loot and offered to him, he respectfully begged her pardon and asked his soldiers to reach her back from the place from where she was forcibly brought in. Shivaji was in no way actuated by any hatred towards people of other religions.
As a matter of fact he had great respect for holy people of all religions. All this goes on to show the values of communal harmony which Shivaji pursued, and that his primary goal was to establish his own kingdom with maximum possible geographical area. To project him as anti-Muslim and anti-Islam is travesty of truth. Neither was Afzal Khan an anti Hindu king. When Shivaji killed Afzal Khan, Afzal Khan’s secretary Krishnaji Bhasker Kulkarni attacked Shivaji with a sword.
Today communal forces are out to ‘use’ Shivaji issue, to communalize the same for their political goals. In Maharashtra, Shivaji Afzal Khan have been projected as Hindu and Muslim kings. From amongst all the possible pictures of Shivaji, why is the one related to Afzal Khan is chosen? One can also show the pictures of his Pratapgadh fort with Afzal Khans tomb in that, one can show Shivaji paying respect to the Mazar of Madari Mehtar, a Muslim prince, who helped him to escape from Agra? The very selection of this picture is to divide the communities along religious lines. Communal interpretation of History, Communal historiography has been the major tool in the arsenal of communal forces. Minorities should not react to such things and try to call for peace with all the communities all the time. Now we are witnessing this pattern of history being used to communalize the society, to create sectarian divides in society. What is needed is to overcome these communal angles, to undermine identity issues, to build the Indian nation. We need to look at historical icons, as kings ruling for power, rather then the representatives of a particular religion.
--
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Ishrat Jahan murder
Ishrat Jahan: Murder in Cold Blood
Ram Puniyani
In the aftermath of Gujarat carnage the then Prime Minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee subtly reprimanded Modi Governemtn that Raj Dharma should have been followed. The implication was that state should have actively intervened to protect the innocents who were killed during the violence. What will one say if the same state selectively picks up innocent citizens, kills them and presents false stories to save its skin? While taking the oath, while joining the state one is supposed to treat all citizens as equal irrespective of their religion caste and gender. What do we say about the state, which goes on to kill its innocent citizens who happen to belong to minority community?
As the Citizen’s Tribunal pointed out in the aftermath of Godhra train burning Gujarat State machinery was told to sit back when the rioters were unleashed to kill and maim, to loot and to rape during the carnage. Now we know that in the same state, police officers have become emboldened enough to pick up minority elements, kill them in cold blood and proclaim that it is an encounter! The repeated cry of terrorists planning to kill Modi has been a favorite ploy of the police officers for killing innocents to please the CM, to seek promotions. It also helps to create a larger than life picture of Modi.
When Ishrat Jahan was killed in the June 2005, along with three others, the police officers boasted of their success that they have ably averted the attack on Modi by killing four terrorists of Lashkar-e-Tayyaba. Forensic and post mortem reports confirm that they were killed in cold blood on 14th June, shot at close range in a police custody and then, taken in a car, then put in a row on the road on the outskirts of Ahmadabad. To show that it was encounter, arms-ammunition was kept on their body. At this point of time National Human Rights Commission asked for magisterial inquiry. Later state Government also confirmed of magisterial inquiry going on. At the same time the police investigation was also started.
Justice Tamang has come out with his report that it was not an encounter and that the four killed in cold blood by police were not having any terrorist links. In response the Gujarat government is leaving no stone unturned to say that Justice Tamang had no business to release his report, the Gujarat high court has brought a stay on the report. But already the contents of the report are known through the media reports and Gujarat Government is finding no place to hide its face, also Supreme Court has seen nothing wrong in what Justice Tamang did. The total lack of remorse on the part of Gujarat Government is not surprising at all!
The officer, D. G.Vanjara, who killed these four, was also the one who had brutally killed Soharabbudin and his wife Kauserbi, and is now behind the bars. There is a section of Gujarat people, who are very appreciative of what Vnajara has done, and the situation which Modi Government has brought in. Now the Gujarat Government asks that when the police inquiry was going on, what is the legality of magisterial inquiry? On the contrary as per the law after the death of a person in police custody, or due to police action of this type, inquest, magisterial inquiry and police inquiry all these have to be done.
It is not that it is the first time that encounter, fake encounter killings, are taking place. The difference here is the total identification and defense of such acts by the political leadership of state. The difference is that a section of people are being made to believe such dastardly acts are needed to make the society safe. The effort of Gujarat Government is just to show a brave face in the light of exposure of its brutality in killing the innocents. Incidentally Ishrat was wearing her college, Khalsa College Mumbai, Identity Card around her neck when she was killed in cold blood. Legal nuances and nitty gritty apart where are we heading in twenty in Twenty-first Century?
Just slightly an year ago in the face of police arrest of many Muslim youth in the aftermath of bomb blasts citizens tribunals were held in Hyderabad and then in Jaipur. Legal luminaries and social activists formed the jury of these tribunals. Both tribunals pointed out that the attitude of police is very biased and many a Muslim youth are being arrested without any proof whatsoever. Will such actions by state, will such a defense of killing of innocents, not intensify the sense of injustice amongst a section of Indian citizens?
Where are we heading to? On one hand there are inquiry commission reports showing as to how communal organizations orchestrate crimes and the section of police and part of state administration colludes. On the other plane there is the phenomenon of terrorism, which has many factors contributing to it but it is only Muslims who are blamed for that. We are also witnessing a serious and by now inbuilt discrimination leading to exclusion of minorities from the social facilities. In such an atmosphere what will happen to the psyche of the youth and others from minority community? The social disparities we are creating due to such policies are there for all of us to see. The tragedy is that a section of people have started asserting the correctness of these happenings. The situation which is being created due to all this is further used to blame minorities for it. The Modi-Vanjara duo, which is becoming a law unto them, is the symptom of deeper malaise of
Gujarat.
--
Ram Puniyani
In the aftermath of Gujarat carnage the then Prime Minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee subtly reprimanded Modi Governemtn that Raj Dharma should have been followed. The implication was that state should have actively intervened to protect the innocents who were killed during the violence. What will one say if the same state selectively picks up innocent citizens, kills them and presents false stories to save its skin? While taking the oath, while joining the state one is supposed to treat all citizens as equal irrespective of their religion caste and gender. What do we say about the state, which goes on to kill its innocent citizens who happen to belong to minority community?
As the Citizen’s Tribunal pointed out in the aftermath of Godhra train burning Gujarat State machinery was told to sit back when the rioters were unleashed to kill and maim, to loot and to rape during the carnage. Now we know that in the same state, police officers have become emboldened enough to pick up minority elements, kill them in cold blood and proclaim that it is an encounter! The repeated cry of terrorists planning to kill Modi has been a favorite ploy of the police officers for killing innocents to please the CM, to seek promotions. It also helps to create a larger than life picture of Modi.
When Ishrat Jahan was killed in the June 2005, along with three others, the police officers boasted of their success that they have ably averted the attack on Modi by killing four terrorists of Lashkar-e-Tayyaba. Forensic and post mortem reports confirm that they were killed in cold blood on 14th June, shot at close range in a police custody and then, taken in a car, then put in a row on the road on the outskirts of Ahmadabad. To show that it was encounter, arms-ammunition was kept on their body. At this point of time National Human Rights Commission asked for magisterial inquiry. Later state Government also confirmed of magisterial inquiry going on. At the same time the police investigation was also started.
Justice Tamang has come out with his report that it was not an encounter and that the four killed in cold blood by police were not having any terrorist links. In response the Gujarat government is leaving no stone unturned to say that Justice Tamang had no business to release his report, the Gujarat high court has brought a stay on the report. But already the contents of the report are known through the media reports and Gujarat Government is finding no place to hide its face, also Supreme Court has seen nothing wrong in what Justice Tamang did. The total lack of remorse on the part of Gujarat Government is not surprising at all!
The officer, D. G.Vanjara, who killed these four, was also the one who had brutally killed Soharabbudin and his wife Kauserbi, and is now behind the bars. There is a section of Gujarat people, who are very appreciative of what Vnajara has done, and the situation which Modi Government has brought in. Now the Gujarat Government asks that when the police inquiry was going on, what is the legality of magisterial inquiry? On the contrary as per the law after the death of a person in police custody, or due to police action of this type, inquest, magisterial inquiry and police inquiry all these have to be done.
It is not that it is the first time that encounter, fake encounter killings, are taking place. The difference here is the total identification and defense of such acts by the political leadership of state. The difference is that a section of people are being made to believe such dastardly acts are needed to make the society safe. The effort of Gujarat Government is just to show a brave face in the light of exposure of its brutality in killing the innocents. Incidentally Ishrat was wearing her college, Khalsa College Mumbai, Identity Card around her neck when she was killed in cold blood. Legal nuances and nitty gritty apart where are we heading in twenty in Twenty-first Century?
Just slightly an year ago in the face of police arrest of many Muslim youth in the aftermath of bomb blasts citizens tribunals were held in Hyderabad and then in Jaipur. Legal luminaries and social activists formed the jury of these tribunals. Both tribunals pointed out that the attitude of police is very biased and many a Muslim youth are being arrested without any proof whatsoever. Will such actions by state, will such a defense of killing of innocents, not intensify the sense of injustice amongst a section of Indian citizens?
Where are we heading to? On one hand there are inquiry commission reports showing as to how communal organizations orchestrate crimes and the section of police and part of state administration colludes. On the other plane there is the phenomenon of terrorism, which has many factors contributing to it but it is only Muslims who are blamed for that. We are also witnessing a serious and by now inbuilt discrimination leading to exclusion of minorities from the social facilities. In such an atmosphere what will happen to the psyche of the youth and others from minority community? The social disparities we are creating due to such policies are there for all of us to see. The tragedy is that a section of people have started asserting the correctness of these happenings. The situation which is being created due to all this is further used to blame minorities for it. The Modi-Vanjara duo, which is becoming a law unto them, is the symptom of deeper malaise of
Gujarat.
--
Friday, September 11, 2009
Partition Puzzle : Role of British
Partition Puzzle: Role of British Policy
Ram Puniyani
Jaswant Singh in his recent book on Jinnah has praised the secular nature of Jinnah and has held Nehru-Patel responsible for Partition of India. Many people from Pakistan are praising Jaswant Singh’s book to the sky, while here in India there is a mixed reaction. Most strong one came from BJP President Rajnath Singh who hinted that any praise of Jinnah, will be met with strict action. The problem with such formulation, Jinnah was secular, Nehru-Patel were responsible for partition, is that it is an extremely superficial analysis and does not look at the complex multilayered phenomenon of partition tragedy. It totally by passes the role of British rulers and the different interests of diverse classes during freedom movement. The response to the book is either at emotive level, our leader versus your leader, or how dare you speak against our icon!
In the midst of the whole debate, the British get away with the cake. As such they not only took all the measures, implemented all policies which were divisive but also accepted all the demands which led to partition. In the process they ensured that even after they leave, the interests of imperial powers, UK-USA, in the Middle East remain safe and secure. This ensured that they continue to dominate the area and retain their military and political base in the region. While the mini battle, Jinnah versus Nehru-Patel is on, the role of the major culprits of partition, the Colonial powers of yesteryears and the imperialist power of today is generally not being brought under scrutiny.
If we look at the British polices, right from the beginning there were germs of divide and rule. They saw Indian society as divided along religious lines, underplaying the fact that the real divisions were not along religious lines but along class and caste lines. Shaken by the massive revolt of 1857, their subtle policies of ‘divide and rule’ started becoming more overt and articulate. In 1858 Lord Elphinstone, Governor of Bombay Province, in his communication to The East India Company’s executives wrote, “Divide et Impera’ (Divide and Rule) was old Roman motto and it should be ours.” In return Charles Wood, Secretary of State for India wrote that, “The antagonism of Indian races was an element of strength to the British India. Therefore ‘a dissociating spirit’ should be kept up, for if India was to unite against us, how long could we maintain ourselves.”
Both these quotes amply indicate towards shape of policies in times to come. As a foundation of these polices, ‘doctoring of mass consciousness’ along religious lines began through specially sponsored History books. The two major ones’ in this direction were Six Volume ‘History of India as told by her Historians’ by Elliot and Dawson and History of India by James Mill, who periodized the Indian History into Hindu Period, Muslim Period and British period. This periodization gave the impression that history’s period is determined by the religion of the king. Needless to say that the medieval administration of Kings was never based along religious lines; their court officials and chain of Landlords were belonging to both the religions. These British sponsored accounts of History argued that Muslims Rulers had enslaved India and now British have come to end the misrule of Muslim Kings. Such an account became a convenient tool in the hands of Hindu communalists, Hindu Mahsabha and RSS, to play their part of divisive politics amongst masses. The Muslim League turned it around to say that Muslim rulers were glorious and great.
This communalization of minds was the fertile soil on which the communalists could plant their narrow agenda of Muslim Nation and Hindu Nation. Another British Historian Sir T.W. Holderness in his book Peoples and Problems of India mooted the idea that Hindus and Muslims regard themselves as separate nations. This book came out in 1923 and in the same year Savarkar came out with his book, ‘Hindutva or Who is a Hindu’?, where the same formulation was presented in a different way.
At concrete level on the political chessboard, Lord Curzon, the then Viceroy of India, partitioned Bengal (1904) with communal motivation and this was probably the first concrete experiment in communalizing the politics at big level. Curzon went on to declare that this is an attempt to invest in the Mussalmans of Eastern Bengal. Just a couple of years later (2006) the delegation of Muslim Landlords and Nawabs was received by Viceroy, where he declared that these Muslim elite to be the representatives of Muslim community. The delegation went to ask for separate electorate for Muslims, and these separate electorates introduced later acted as the trigger to polarize the nation along religious lines. Many a members of this delegation were also part of United India Patriotic Association, an organization of Hindu and Muslim landlords and Kings which had come up in the wake of formation of Indian National Congress. Indian National Congress was critical of British and in response, this association pledged to enhance the loyalty of the people to the British crown.
Thus Viceroy Minto subtly encouraged Muslim communalism, and later the same delegation members went on to form Muslim League. Lady Minto in her communication takes pride in what the Lord had done. She commented that what has happened, the receiving of delegation etc. will pull back sixty million people from joining the ranks of seditious opposition, meaning the rising national movement.
MacDonald’s Communal Award of 1932 was the next step, which enhanced the communal divides. Interestingly in 1939 Congress firmly told the British that they will not join the war efforts until they are guaranteed freedom in return. And lo and behold in 1940 Jinnah comes with the demand for Pakistan at Lahore Muslim League convention. Can such things be coincidental? Demand of Pakistan may have been a bargaining counter but its timing is interesting.
No doubt the Cabinet mission plan could have prevented partition, but it is debatable whether it would not have sown the fissiparous tendencies amongst the princely states and the states where Muslim League was in majority. The other necessity which made British to partition India, related to their strategic needs in the area. At the end of WWII, the global power equations changed. USA and USSR both emerged as major powers. US had posted its representative in India from 1942. With British deciding to leave India, freedom was imperative. The British calculation at this time was that an Undivided India with leadership of Congress will not let Britain continue with its military bases in the area. With USSR coming up in a big way, Mao Tse Tung rising in China and section of Congress leadership impressed by socialism, UK-USA were sure that India will not side with them in their global designs of countering USSR militarily and in continuing their oil plunder in middle east. Here comes the Radcliff Line, which runs in the areas adjacent to Iraq, Afghanistan and Sinkiang. British diplomats had the job cut out for them, to make Jinnah accept moth eaten Pakistan and to make Congress leadership to accept the partition.
Somehow the plans of imperialists were immaculate. And in times to come Pakistan, where Mr. Jinnah wanted to have religious freedom, was converted into a land ruled by Mullahs, Army and American Ambassador. It was the same Pakistan which was supported to the hilt on the Kashmir issue; the idea was that US strategic interests are safe with this arrangement. It is a matter of great relief that Pakistan is struggling to come out from the vice like grip of Army, but can it shed its client state type status vis a vis US, is the million rupee question. The people of Pakistan have been big victim of Imperialist designs all through while Pakistan military has been having all the green pastures for itself.
In partitioning India, colonialists reaped rich harvest at the cost of the people of the subcontinent, millions dead, a single entity India, divided into Pakistan, India and Bangla Desh. These countries keep on spending a major part of their budgets in investing in armaments and fattening of their armed forces, something which could have been meaningfully invested for the growth and development of the region. We need to wake up from the blame game and see the real culprit.
--
Ram Puniyani
Jaswant Singh in his recent book on Jinnah has praised the secular nature of Jinnah and has held Nehru-Patel responsible for Partition of India. Many people from Pakistan are praising Jaswant Singh’s book to the sky, while here in India there is a mixed reaction. Most strong one came from BJP President Rajnath Singh who hinted that any praise of Jinnah, will be met with strict action. The problem with such formulation, Jinnah was secular, Nehru-Patel were responsible for partition, is that it is an extremely superficial analysis and does not look at the complex multilayered phenomenon of partition tragedy. It totally by passes the role of British rulers and the different interests of diverse classes during freedom movement. The response to the book is either at emotive level, our leader versus your leader, or how dare you speak against our icon!
In the midst of the whole debate, the British get away with the cake. As such they not only took all the measures, implemented all policies which were divisive but also accepted all the demands which led to partition. In the process they ensured that even after they leave, the interests of imperial powers, UK-USA, in the Middle East remain safe and secure. This ensured that they continue to dominate the area and retain their military and political base in the region. While the mini battle, Jinnah versus Nehru-Patel is on, the role of the major culprits of partition, the Colonial powers of yesteryears and the imperialist power of today is generally not being brought under scrutiny.
If we look at the British polices, right from the beginning there were germs of divide and rule. They saw Indian society as divided along religious lines, underplaying the fact that the real divisions were not along religious lines but along class and caste lines. Shaken by the massive revolt of 1857, their subtle policies of ‘divide and rule’ started becoming more overt and articulate. In 1858 Lord Elphinstone, Governor of Bombay Province, in his communication to The East India Company’s executives wrote, “Divide et Impera’ (Divide and Rule) was old Roman motto and it should be ours.” In return Charles Wood, Secretary of State for India wrote that, “The antagonism of Indian races was an element of strength to the British India. Therefore ‘a dissociating spirit’ should be kept up, for if India was to unite against us, how long could we maintain ourselves.”
Both these quotes amply indicate towards shape of policies in times to come. As a foundation of these polices, ‘doctoring of mass consciousness’ along religious lines began through specially sponsored History books. The two major ones’ in this direction were Six Volume ‘History of India as told by her Historians’ by Elliot and Dawson and History of India by James Mill, who periodized the Indian History into Hindu Period, Muslim Period and British period. This periodization gave the impression that history’s period is determined by the religion of the king. Needless to say that the medieval administration of Kings was never based along religious lines; their court officials and chain of Landlords were belonging to both the religions. These British sponsored accounts of History argued that Muslims Rulers had enslaved India and now British have come to end the misrule of Muslim Kings. Such an account became a convenient tool in the hands of Hindu communalists, Hindu Mahsabha and RSS, to play their part of divisive politics amongst masses. The Muslim League turned it around to say that Muslim rulers were glorious and great.
This communalization of minds was the fertile soil on which the communalists could plant their narrow agenda of Muslim Nation and Hindu Nation. Another British Historian Sir T.W. Holderness in his book Peoples and Problems of India mooted the idea that Hindus and Muslims regard themselves as separate nations. This book came out in 1923 and in the same year Savarkar came out with his book, ‘Hindutva or Who is a Hindu’?, where the same formulation was presented in a different way.
At concrete level on the political chessboard, Lord Curzon, the then Viceroy of India, partitioned Bengal (1904) with communal motivation and this was probably the first concrete experiment in communalizing the politics at big level. Curzon went on to declare that this is an attempt to invest in the Mussalmans of Eastern Bengal. Just a couple of years later (2006) the delegation of Muslim Landlords and Nawabs was received by Viceroy, where he declared that these Muslim elite to be the representatives of Muslim community. The delegation went to ask for separate electorate for Muslims, and these separate electorates introduced later acted as the trigger to polarize the nation along religious lines. Many a members of this delegation were also part of United India Patriotic Association, an organization of Hindu and Muslim landlords and Kings which had come up in the wake of formation of Indian National Congress. Indian National Congress was critical of British and in response, this association pledged to enhance the loyalty of the people to the British crown.
Thus Viceroy Minto subtly encouraged Muslim communalism, and later the same delegation members went on to form Muslim League. Lady Minto in her communication takes pride in what the Lord had done. She commented that what has happened, the receiving of delegation etc. will pull back sixty million people from joining the ranks of seditious opposition, meaning the rising national movement.
MacDonald’s Communal Award of 1932 was the next step, which enhanced the communal divides. Interestingly in 1939 Congress firmly told the British that they will not join the war efforts until they are guaranteed freedom in return. And lo and behold in 1940 Jinnah comes with the demand for Pakistan at Lahore Muslim League convention. Can such things be coincidental? Demand of Pakistan may have been a bargaining counter but its timing is interesting.
No doubt the Cabinet mission plan could have prevented partition, but it is debatable whether it would not have sown the fissiparous tendencies amongst the princely states and the states where Muslim League was in majority. The other necessity which made British to partition India, related to their strategic needs in the area. At the end of WWII, the global power equations changed. USA and USSR both emerged as major powers. US had posted its representative in India from 1942. With British deciding to leave India, freedom was imperative. The British calculation at this time was that an Undivided India with leadership of Congress will not let Britain continue with its military bases in the area. With USSR coming up in a big way, Mao Tse Tung rising in China and section of Congress leadership impressed by socialism, UK-USA were sure that India will not side with them in their global designs of countering USSR militarily and in continuing their oil plunder in middle east. Here comes the Radcliff Line, which runs in the areas adjacent to Iraq, Afghanistan and Sinkiang. British diplomats had the job cut out for them, to make Jinnah accept moth eaten Pakistan and to make Congress leadership to accept the partition.
Somehow the plans of imperialists were immaculate. And in times to come Pakistan, where Mr. Jinnah wanted to have religious freedom, was converted into a land ruled by Mullahs, Army and American Ambassador. It was the same Pakistan which was supported to the hilt on the Kashmir issue; the idea was that US strategic interests are safe with this arrangement. It is a matter of great relief that Pakistan is struggling to come out from the vice like grip of Army, but can it shed its client state type status vis a vis US, is the million rupee question. The people of Pakistan have been big victim of Imperialist designs all through while Pakistan military has been having all the green pastures for itself.
In partitioning India, colonialists reaped rich harvest at the cost of the people of the subcontinent, millions dead, a single entity India, divided into Pakistan, India and Bangla Desh. These countries keep on spending a major part of their budgets in investing in armaments and fattening of their armed forces, something which could have been meaningfully invested for the growth and development of the region. We need to wake up from the blame game and see the real culprit.
--
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)