Home Blog Page 28

Ghetto Tech Wizards: How Ijma International is Revolutionizing Education

Kolkata: When you first see 8-year-old Mohammed Ashfaque or 7-year-old Mariam Adil, along with other students assembling robotic cars, understanding the processes to build them, and participating in races to see how they work practically, you might think the students are from one of the top-notch schools in the city. But in reality, they study at Ijma International Model School, which is not only small but also situated in the lanes of Topsia, a Muslim ghetto in Kolkata.

However, meeting experts from different fields of international repute to learn new technology at a tender age has become a routine for them.

The boys wearing skull caps and the girls wearing hijab speak fluent English. They were seen listening to the administrators during this weekend..

“As you have learned to assemble robotic cars and tried to understand their engineering, we will also give you an idea of how cars move without drivers and how WiFi-enabled cars function,” said Nafis Ahmed Khan to the excited children. Khan added, “The purpose of the workshop was to give them an insight into robotic cars, how their connections work, and how to make battery connections so that they have a better understanding of how controlled cars work.”

The pupils not only took part in the two-hour-long robotics workshop but their curriculum follows CBSE (Central Board of Secondary Education) Board too. They learn mathematics, science, and computers as well as the Arabic language and Deeniyat. Every classroom has air conditioners, and there is a smart big screen for students. The school not only holds workshops on the latest technologies but also brings experts from different fields to interact with curious young minds.

Experts visit

There is a long list of experts from different fields from India and abroad, including Professor Ewaz Al-Jum’aa Al-Laila from King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; Mufti Obaidulla Asadi, Chairman of the Jurisprudence Committee, Islami Fiqh Academy; Muhammad Mushtaque Nadwi, Judge in the lower court, Doha, Qatar; Maulana Jaafar Hasani Nadwi, Deputy General Secretary, Nadwatul Ulama, Lucknow; Wing Commander (Retd) Shamim Akhtar; NUJS Dean Sarfaraz Ahmed Khan; Advocate Khurshid Alam; Mamoon Akhtar, Founder and Chairman of Samaritan Group; Wali Rahmani, Founder of Umeed Academy; Chartered Accountants Faiz Anwar and Asif Ali; NEET Basket Founder Noor Alam; and social activists Manzar Jameel, Athar Firdausi, Umar Owais, Abu Talha Jamal Qasmi, Manzar Imam, and Alam Jamshed, who have met the kids from time to time over the last two years.

“Our students will compete with any other school’s children. We are preparing them so they can remain ahead in every aspect. The future belongs to Artificial Intelligence (AI), so these kids, when they grow up, will not only be well-versed with the latest technology but will also be able to think beyond it and may contribute something new to mankind,” the director, Dr Sarfaraz Adil, told eNewsroom. Dr Sarfaraz revealed the school’s plan to have a robotics lab in the school.

Role of Ijma Charitable Trust

Starting in the year 2023, the classes range from Nursery to 3rd grade. It has around 100 students. Run under the Izma Charitable Trust, it also has a provision for giving scholarships to 20 percent of the total students for each session. Ten percent can get a half-freeship in the fees, and the other ten percent can get a full freeship. “We have a plan to run the senior secondary school, and we have got land for this as well,” added the director.

Message for Parents

Mariam Adil is the daughter of the director. Her presence, according to the director, gives a message that unlike other small schools, the sons and daughters of the faculty also study here. This move will make parents confident about the fact that there will be no compromise in the education imparted at the school.

Emergency Revisited: Constitutional Amendments Needed to Prevent History Repeating

0

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he history of this country is woven around building narratives and myths around popular figures. A lot has been said and written about the imposition of Emergency on the intervening night of June 25th-26th 1975 by the then Prime Minister Mrs Indira Gandhi under article 352 of the Constitution. So, the emergency was not imposed outside the constitution but very much through a constitutional provision and not by ‘murdering’ it. It might have been an immoral act or undemocratic but it was not unconstitutional as it was part of the constitution. I hope that day an honest appraisal of the emergency and a proper scanning of the heroes who enjoyed power post-emergency after Indira Gandhi was defeated in the Parliamentary elections. Researchers and historians must find out the truth.

There needs to be a detailed analysis of Justice Jagmohan Lal Sinha”s verdict against the prime minister. Did he intentionally call her to Court to humiliate or embarrass her? We have never seen such a case again even when it is a well-known fact that ruling parties often misuse bureaucracy and government machinery. Was Indira Gandhi the only leader who misused power and all others are too democratic to misuse it? Can any court do such a thing in today’s time? If a court gives a judgment against any powerful leader what will the government do? Was this a normal decision or was there a conspiracy to derail the government and create anarchy?Actually, the 975 crisis is a lesson for all. For political parties, for judiciary, for media as well as for the government.

What could the government do when Jai Prakash Narain called for a total revolt against the government from the police and armed forces? Was that not an act of inciting a rebellion? Indira Gandhi could or should have initiated a political dialogue but somewhere she failed to rise on the occasion and depended too much on a coterie that just found ways and means to legitimise her acts particularly that of her son Sanjay Gandhi.

We also need to understand the political ideology of forces opposed to Indira Gandhi.

Who was Morarji Desai and how did he become prime minister instead of Babu Jagjivan Ram? The whole Janata experiment failed because of overambitious leaders and their rigidities in humiliating Mrs Gandhi. If Indira had failed in politically handling the crisis, Janata leaders failed miserably and believed in tit for tat.

We need to go a bit earlier to the 1970s when Indira Gandhi made some extremely radical and revolutionary decisions. Land Distribution was one major factor. Implementation of reservation was another important decision. Nationalisation of Banks and insurance companies. We were doing away with the privy purses of the erstwhile Raja Maharajas. Now, remember, who was opposed to the Nationalisation of Banks and strengthening of the public sector? Yes, It was Moraraji Desai, who later became Prime Minister. Don’t we understand that the 1971 Indo-Soviet Peace Treaty which actually helped India from any further Chinese aggression and ultimately helped create Bangladesh was always a bone of contention? So, most of these self-proclaimed socialists had a pro-American slant. World over socialism has an inherent link with Marxism and left politics and before Lohia and Jai Prakash, there was a leader of great courage of conviction, named Acharya Narendra Dev, a scholar on Buddhism but completely forgotten and ignored by the Samajwadis today, many of them might not even heard. Why did socialism in India take a pro-American turn? Does the 1977 uprising against Indira Gandhi have any linkage with those who never wanted Indo-Russia friendship?

Do we know that despite so much noise, the Janata Party won merely 295 seats and the Congress under Indira Gandhi won 154 seats? There was a sharp difference between the voting patterns of North and South. Indira Gandhi lost RaeBareli seat and Sanjay Gandhi was defeated in Amethi but Mrs Gandhi returned to Parliament after winning from Chikmanglur in Karnataka.

Now what was the reason for Indira Gandhi’s defeat in 1977? I can bet it. The reason was not the detention of political prisoners but mostly the compulsory sterilisation campaign in the name of family planning and this was under instructions of Sanjay Gandhi. It was resented by people vehemently. The second issue was the highhandedness of government officials in removing ‘encroachments’. Both these actions of highhandedness actually hurt and impacted negatively, the Congress’ core vote bank, the scheduled castes and Muslims. The results were obvious. Congress lost their support.

Interestingly, Sanjay Gandhi’s anti-sterilisation initiative as well as his bulldozing at Turkman Gate on May 31st, 1976 got the biggest support from RSS and Jan Sangh. Congress paid the price of Emergency due to Sanjay Gandhi’s highhandedness against Muslims as well as other marginalised communities.

Indira Gandhi brought secularism and socialism into the Constitution and also added article 51a, our constitutional duties, an important point.

Emergency was a wrong decision politically for a leader who had become immensely popular and was slowly pushing her son Sanjay Gandhi for the leadership issue. She was too dependent on her and in haste to become Supreme Leader, Sanjay created an intimidating environment. Rather than handling the discontent against the government politically, he felt they needed to be dealt with almost like criminals. It resulted in widespread anger against the party in north India.

Remember, the Janata leaders could not build anything and the two years they focused only on humiliating Indira Gandhi. The people of India did not take it lightly. The Janata government failed due to its contradictions. RSS became the point of difference. It resulted in snap polls in 1980 and the people of India gave Indira Gandhi and Congress party one of the biggest mandates. Congress won 353 seats and Indira Gandhi won not only from Raibareilly but also from Medak in Andhra Pradesh at that time.

We must remember one thing. It is time for political parties to understand that people don’t like highhandedness and they punished Congress for that but the same people did not like Janata Party leaders humiliating Indira Gandhi and defeating them.

Emergency should not have been imposed but it needs to be seen whether such an important issue could have been dealt with by the judiciary in a different way. Will someone critique Justice Jagmohan Lal Sinha and Shanti Bhushan responsible for creating a constitutional crisis? I don’t know but I feel such important matters which can have far-reaching consequences need to be heard by a constitution bench so that the country is saved from anarchy and chaos.

Emergency was a political failure of Indira Gandhi, was an immoral act but not unconstitutional as those powers are still with the government. If we all are so upset about that then the government must bring a constitutional amendment and remove those powers so that no powerful leader can dare to impose it on people and their political opponents. Indira Gandhi brought the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) during an emergency to curtail political opposition and civil society and this law is still there to punish civil society organisations. Why can’t these remnants of the emergency be removed?

And lastly the most important part. The pro-American lobby led by Jai Prakash blamed Indira Gandhi for trying to create a Soviet Style dictatorial structure in India while Indira Gandhi blamed them for being funded by the CIA but one fact is there. India’s right wing always aspired that India has better relations with the West particularly with the United States. Indira Gandhi stood solidly on the foundation of Indo-Soviet Friendship. Fifty years after the emergency, the political opponents of Indira Gandhi are following her foreign policy and Russia India friendship is on a rock-solid foundation.

Let us not be caged in our past. Impartial understanding of history provides lessons for all so that our future generations do not face it. Politically, the issue is settled as Indira Gandhi never defended it. She was defeated by people and the same people brought her back by defeating her opponents who had come to power just two years back. Let us move forward and focus on issues concerning the nation.

সত্য, প্রেম এবং অহিংসা: হিন্দু ধর্মের রাহুল গান্ধীর দৃষ্টিভঙ্গি

সাম্প্রতিক লোকসভা নির্বাচনের ফল প্রকাশের পর সংসদ এমন এক জায়গা হয়ে উঠেছে যেখানে সত্যি সত্যি বিরোধী স্বরের পরিসর রয়েছে। রাষ্ট্রপতির ভাষণ নিয়ে বিতর্কের পর লোকসভার বিরোধী দলনেতা রাহুল গান্ধী জবাবি ভাষণে দেশের বিভিন্ন সমস্যা তুলে ধরেছেন। সেই ভাষণের একটি অংশ, যা কার্যবিবরণী থেকে সম্ভবত ইতিমধ্যেই মুছে ফেলা হয়েছে, ছিল হিন্দুধর্মের প্রকৃতি সম্পর্কে। রাহুলের মতে, হিন্দুধর্মের ভিত্তি হল সত্য ও অহিংসা। ‘ভারত অহিংসার দেশ, ভয়ের দেশ নয়। আমাদের সমস্ত মহাপুরুষ অহিংসার কথা এবং ভয়কে জয় করার কথা বলেছেন।’ একথা বলার পর বিজেপি সাংসদদের বেঞ্চের দিকে আঙুল তুলে রাহুল যোগ করেন ‘অথচ যারা নিজেদের হিন্দু বলে, তারা সারাদিন হিংসা, ঘৃণা আর অসত্য বলে বেড়ায়।’

তারপর থেকে বহু সাধু, সন্ন্যাসী রাহুলের বিবৃতির প্রতিবাদ করেছেন। আমেদাবাদের কংগ্রেস দফতরের উপর আক্রমণ চালানো হয়েছে, রাষ্ট্রীয় স্বয়ংসেবক সঙ্ঘ (আরএসএস) ও তার সাঙ্গোপাঙ্গরা বলছে রাহুল হিন্দুদের সহিংস বলেছেন ইত্যাদি। অন্যদিকে রাহুল তাঁর বক্তব্যের ব্যাখ্যা দিয়েছেন। আরএসএসের আদর্শে উদ্বুদ্ধ ব্যক্তিরা এই সুযোগে বলে বেড়াচ্ছেন যে জওহরলাল নেহরু থেকে শুরু করে রাহুল পর্যন্ত কারোর আদর্শ দেশের বাস্তবতায় সম্পৃক্ত নয়। তাঁদের মতে নেহরু, রাহুল প্রমুখ কেবল সংখ্যালঘুদের নিয়ে কথা বলেন ভোটব্যাঙ্ক অক্ষত রাখার জন্য।

হিন্দুধর্মের যে মানবতাবাদী ব্যাখ্যা রাহুল দিয়েছেন, ইন্ডিয়া ব্লকের অনেকেই তার পক্ষে দাঁড়িয়েছেন। এই মুহূর্তে হিন্দুধর্ম আর হিন্দুত্ব শব্দ দুটোর ব্যবহারে তফাত রাখা হচ্ছে না। যেমন উদ্ধব ঠাকরে বলেছেন হিন্দুত্ব সম্পর্কে তাঁর মতামত রাহুল যা বলেছেন (হিন্দুধর্ম সম্পর্কে) তার অনুরূপ। আরএসএস মতাদর্শে বিশ্বাসীরা নেহরুর সাম্প্রদায়িকতাবিরোধী অভিযানের সমালোচনা করে সেটিকে আরএসএসের বিরুদ্ধে অভিযান হিসাবে চিহ্নিত করেন! তাঁরা তৎকালীন রাষ্ট্রপতি রাজেন্দ্র প্রসাদের সোমনাথ মন্দিরের উদ্বোধন করার বিরোধিতা করার জন্যেও নেহরুর নিন্দা করেন। তাঁদের বক্তব্য, আরএসএসের হিন্দুত্ব দয়ানন্দ সরস্বতী, স্বামী বিবেকানন্দ, বঙ্কিমচন্দ্র চট্টোপাধ্যায় এবং শ্যামাপ্রসাদ মুখার্জির উত্তরাধিকার। কিন্তু প্রকৃতপক্ষে আরএসএসের আদর্শের সঙ্গে দয়ানন্দ আর বিবেকানন্দের আদর্শের সম্পর্কে মোটেই খুব জোরালো নয়। ওই নামগুলো ব্যবহার করে আরএসএস শাক দিয়ে মাছ ঢাকার মত করে নিজেদের আদর্শ লুকিয়ে রাখে।

হিন্দু শব্দটিই বেদ, উপনিষদ, গীতা বা মনুস্মৃতির মত পবিত্র হিন্দু গ্রন্থগুলিতে নেই। শব্দটি চালু করেছিল সিন্ধু নদের পশ্চিম দিক থেকে আসা মানুষেরা, যাদের ভাষায় স-এর ব্যবহার সীমিত এবং স-এর উচ্চারণ হ-এর মত। ফলে সিন্ধু হয়ে দাঁড়ায় হিন্দু

 

হিন্দুধর্ম যেহেতু পয়গম্বর বা দেবদূতভিত্তিক ধর্ম নয়, সেহেতু একই কথার বহুরকম ব্যাখ্যা চালু আছে। হিন্দু শব্দটিই বেদ, উপনিষদ, গীতা বা মনুস্মৃতির মত পবিত্র হিন্দু গ্রন্থগুলিতে নেই। শব্দটি চালু করেছিল সিন্ধু নদের পশ্চিম দিক থেকে আসা মানুষেরা, যাদের ভাষায় স-এর ব্যবহার সীমিত এবং স-এর উচ্চারণ হ-এর মত। ফলে সিন্ধু হয়ে দাঁড়ায় হিন্দু এবং প্রাথমিকভাবে ওই শব্দের দ্বারা বোঝানো হত সিন্ধু নদ থেকে সমুদ্র পর্যন্ত বিস্তৃত অঞ্চলকে। এই অঞ্চলে প্রধানত যেসব ধর্মীয় প্রবণতা সেইসময় থেকে প্রচলিত ছিল সেগুলি হল বৈদিক ধর্ম (যাকে ব্রাহ্মণ্যবাদও বলা চলে), আজীবিক, তন্ত্র, নাথ, শৈব, বৌদ্ধ ধর্ম এবং জৈন ধর্ম।

পরে হিন্দু শব্দটি এই এলাকায় প্রচলিত আলাদা আলাদা ধর্মীয় প্রবণতাকে (বৌদ্ধ ধর্ম ও জৈন ধর্ম ছাড়া) একত্রে বোঝানোর মত একটি শব্দ হয়ে দাঁড়ায়। ব্রাহ্মণ্যবাদ বাদে অন্য প্রবণতাগুলিকে বলা হত শ্রমণবাদ। ব্রাহ্মণ্যবাদ আর শ্রমণবাদের মূল পার্থক্য হল, প্রথমটিতে বর্ণভিত্তিক এবং লিঙ্গভিত্তিক ক্ষমতার বিন্যাস ছিল। হিন্দুধর্ম শব্দটির উৎপত্তির চমৎকার ব্যাখ্যা করেছিলেন ডিএন ঝা, ২০০৬ সালের ভারতীয় ইতিহাস কংগ্রেসে তাঁর সভাপতির ভাষণে। তিনি দেখিয়ে দেন যে ‘অবশ্যই প্রাক-উপনিবেশ ভারতে শব্দটির ব্যবহার ছিল, কিন্তু অষ্টাদশ শতকের শেষদিক বা উনিশ শতকের প্রথম ভাগের আগে নয় ব্রিটিশ পণ্ডিতরা এই শব্দটি গ্রহণ করেননি।’ তা হওয়ার পর থেকেই এর ব্যাপক ব্যবহার আরম্ভ হয়। তখন থেকেই এই উপমহাদেশের শিখ, জৈন, বৌদ্ধ, মুসলমান ও খ্রিস্টান ছাড়া সকলের জন্যই ঐ শব্দটি ব্যবহৃত হতে থাকে।

যেহেতু কোনো উঁচু পাঁচিল তোলা ছিল না, সেহেতু ব্রাহ্মণ্যবাদী ধারা বেদ ও মনুস্মৃতিকে পবিত্র গ্রন্থ হিসাবে তুলে ধরে। হিন্দুধর্ম সম্পর্কে প্রধান দৃষ্টিভঙ্গিগুলিরও বৈচিত্র্য ছিল। আম্বেদকরের মতে হিন্দুধর্ম ব্রাহ্মণ্যবাদ দ্বারা নিয়ন্ত্রিত, যা আসলে বর্ণাশ্রম। সেই কারণেই তিনি মনুস্মৃতি পুড়িয়েছিলেন। অন্যদিকে মহাত্মা গান্ধী নিজেকে বলতেন সনাতনী হিন্দু এবং ইয়াং ইন্ডিয়া-তে ৬ অক্টোবর ১৯২১ তারিখে লেখেন ‘হিন্দুধর্ম সকলকে নিজের বিশ্বাস বা ধর্ম অনুযায়ী ঈশ্বরের উপাসনা করতে বলে, তাই সমস্ত ধর্মের সঙ্গেই শান্তিতে বসবাস করে।’ আন্তঃধর্ম সম্পর্ক এবং বহুত্ববাদের এ এক অনন্য ধারণা। এখন রাহুল হিন্দুধর্ম সম্পর্কে বলতে গিয়ে সত্য, প্রেম এবং অহিংসাকেই হিন্দুধর্মে প্রাণ বলে গণ্য করছেন।

অবশ্যই প্রাক-উপনিবেশ ভারতে শব্দটির ব্যবহার ছিল, কিন্তু অষ্টাদশ শতকের শেষদিক বা উনিশ শতকের প্রথম ভাগের আগে নয় ব্রিটিশ পণ্ডিতরা এই শব্দটি গ্রহণ করেননি। তা হওয়ার পর থেকেই এর ব্যাপক ব্যবহার আরম্ভ হয়।

 

হিন্দুত্ব শব্দটি চালু করেন চন্দ্রনাথ বসু, ১৮৯২ সালে। তিনি একে আধ্যাত্মিক উচ্চতা অর্জন করার সঙ্গে যুক্ত করেন। রাজনৈতিক পরিসরে হিন্দুত্ব শব্দটিকে নিয়ে আসেন এবং সংজ্ঞায়িত করেন বিনায়ক দামোদর সাভারকর, এসেনশিয়ালস অফ হিন্দুত্ব (১৯২৩) বইতে। তাঁর হিন্দুত্বের ভিত্তি হল আর্য জাতি, পবিত্র ভূমি (সিন্ধু নদ থেকে সমুদ্র পর্যন্ত) এবং সংস্কৃতি (ব্রাহ্মণ্যবাদী)। সাভারকর বৌদ্ধ ধর্মের অহিংসার অতি বড় সমালোচক ছিলেন সেটিকেই এবং ভারতের দুর্বলতার কারণ হিসাবে চিহ্নিত করতেন। এটি ইতিহাসের অত্যন্ত গোলমেলে পাঠ। কারণ বৌদ্ধ ধর্ম যখন ভারতে তুঙ্গে, তখন আধুনিক অর্থে দেশ বলতে যা বোঝায় তার কোনো অস্তিত্ব ছিল না। যদি আমরা সাম্রাজ্যগুলিকেও দেশ বলে ধরি, মনে রাখতে হবে, সম্রাট অশোক বৌদ্ধ ধর্ম গ্রহণ করেছিলেন এবং তখন তাঁর সাম্রাজ্য প্রাচীন ভারতের সবচেয়ে বড় সাম্রাজ্য ছিল। তিনি হিন্দু বলতে বুঝিয়েছিলেন এমন একজনকে যে এই ভূমিকে নিজের পিতৃভূমি এবং পবিত্র ভূমি বলে গণ্য করে।

আরএসএস সাভারকরের পদাঙ্ক অনুসরণ করে ইসলাম ও খ্রিস্টধর্মকে বিদেশি ধর্ম বলে এবং প্রাচীন গ্রন্থগুলিকে (যেমন মনুস্মৃতি) মান্য বলে তুলে ধরে। আরএসএস হিংসাকে নিজেদের বিশ্বাসের অঙ্গ করে তুলেছে এবং তাদের সদর দফতরে নানারকম অস্ত্রশস্ত্র রাখা আছে। দশেরায় সেগুলির পুজো করা হয়। আরএসএস শাখাগুলি বখতিয়ার ও আলাউদ্দিন খিলজি, বাবর, ঔরঙ্গজেবের মত মুসলমান রাজাদের খলনায়ক হিসাবে তুলে ধরে এবং রাণাপ্রতাপ, শিবাজি ও পৃথ্বীরাজ চৌহানের মত হিন্দু রাজাদের নায়ক হিসাবে দেখিয়ে ঘৃণা ছড়ানোর কাজ করেছে। এই সংগঠন দেশের স্বাধীনতা আন্দোলনেরও সমালোচক, কারণ তাতে সব ধর্মের মানুষ অংশগ্রহণ করেছিলেন। আরএসএসের দাবি হল, তারা হিন্দুদের প্রতিনিধি কারণ তারা মন্দির ধ্বংস, গোমাংস খাওয়া এবং বলপূর্বক ধর্মান্তরের মত আবেগপ্রবণ বিষয় নিয়ে কথা বলে। আরএসএস প্রচারিত ঘৃণার দিকে আঙুল তুলেছিলেন স্বয়ং সর্দার বল্লভভাই প্যাটেল, যখন ১৯৪৮ সালে তিনি বলেন ‘ওদের সমস্ত বক্তৃতা সাম্প্রদায়িক বিষে ভর্তি ছিল। সেই বিষের চূড়ান্ত ফলাফল হিসাবে দেশকে গান্ধীজির অমূল্য জীবন আহুতি দিতে হল (All their speeches were full of communal poison, as a final result of the poison, the country had to suffer the sacrifice of the invaluable life of Gandhiji)।’

সম্রাট অশোক বৌদ্ধ ধর্ম গ্রহণ করেছিলেন এবং তখন তাঁর সাম্রাজ্য প্রাচীন ভারতের সবচেয়ে বড় সাম্রাজ্য ছিল। তিনি হিন্দু বলতে বুঝিয়েছিলেন এমন একজনকে যে এই ভূমিকে নিজের পিতৃভূমি এবং পবিত্র ভূমি বলে গণ্য করে।

 

মহাত্মা আর রাহুলের মত নেতারা যেখানে হিন্দুধর্মের মানবিক দিকগুলিকে আরও প্রসারিত এবং বর্ধিত রূপ দিয়েছেন, সেখানে সাভারকর-আরএসএস ঘৃণা এবং তার ফলস্বরূপ হিংসার পথে হেঁটেছে। একদিকে আম্বেদকর হিন্দু জীবনচর্যার উপর ব্রাহ্মণ্যবাদের আধিপত্যের বিরোধিতা করেছেন, অন্যদিকে মহাত্মা থেকে রাহুল পর্যন্ত অনেকে হিন্দুধর্মে এক অন্তর্ভুক্তিমূলক ও অহিংস অর্থ খোঁজার চেষ্টা করেছেন।

 

এটি ইংরেজিতে প্রকাশিত প্রতিবেদনের একটি অনুবাদ।

 

Critic, Conservationist, Changemaker: Jawhar Sircar’s Impactful Journey

0

Kolkata: Bengal has long been a cradle of intellectuals, contributing many great minds to India’s cultural and political landscape. Among these luminaries is Jawhar Sircar, a Rajya Sabha member from Bengal who stands out for his modesty and intellectual vigor. A bureaucrat-turned-politician, Sircar has an impressive background, having served as CEO of Prasar Bharti and as a distinguished officer of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS).

Sircar’s journey from bureaucracy to politics has been marked by a commitment to public service and intellectual discourse. As a prolific writer and a regular participant in city debates and seminars, the public intellectual brings a sober and thoughtful presence to discussions. His articles, published in prominent Indian media outlets such as The Indian Express, The Wire, and The Quint, reflect his deep understanding of various issues.

At 72, Sircar’s interests extend beyond politics. He is a nature lover and photographer, often sharing stunning images captured during his morning walks or travels to significant destinations. His Facebook posts, which offer detailed insights into the background of various Indian festivals, are well-received by his followers. Whether it’s a major celebration or a lesser-known festival, Sircar meticulously documents and shares the cultural significance, making his social media presence both informative and engaging.

Jawhar Sircar’s July 1 speech

The Xaverian remains deeply connected to his roots. Unlike many MPs who restrict their appearances to high-profile events, Sircar is a familiar face at smaller, yet meaningful gatherings in the city. His writings often focus on heritage conservation and giving voice to individuals who are overlooked by mainstream media. His accessibility and willingness to engage with the public are rare qualities among politicians today.

In his role as a Rajya Sabha MP, Sircar has made significant contributions. On July 1, during the Motion of Thanks for the President’s Address, he delivered a compelling speech lasting over 15 minutes. He addressed critical issues such as the potential risks of implementing three new criminal laws (BNS, BNSS, and BSA), the need for prioritizing rail safety over bullet trains, and the government’s mismanagement of public funds to cover corporate losses and frauds.

His performance in the Rajya Sabha has been exemplary. According to PRS India, Sircar outperforms his peers on all important parameters, including attendance, participation in debates, and the number of questions asked. His scores surpass the national average, underscoring his commitment and effectiveness as a parliamentarian.

Jawhar Sircar as Rajya Sabha MP

Rajya Sabha MP Jawhar Sircar TMC IAS

When Sircar, the former CEO of Prasar Bharti, saw that Prasar Bharti had changed its logo color to saffron, he was one of the few voices to speak out against it, perceiving it as the saffronisation of the institution. His career in bureaucracy, spanning 42 years, was marked by dedication and service.

Sircar’s appeal extends across party lines. Despite being a former bureaucrat and a current Rajya Sabha member, he remains approachable and engaged with the public.

“We have also heard that he follows up on cases that he makes a note of and tries to get the work done, which is a rare thing among politicians these days. He shares good bounds with present bureaucrats and intellectual circle” says Bimal Sharma, a neighbor.

However, Sircar’s outspokenness has not been well-received at times by opponents as well as by members of his own party. As one of the harshest critics of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s policies, he frequently faces trolling from the BJP IT Cell. Nonetheless, he continues to raise critical questions on the microblogging site. In 2022, he stirred the political waters further by publicly criticizing a faction of his own party, the TMC, calling it “completely rotten” and hinting at a possible departure from politics. His frustration was evident following the arrests of TMC leaders Partha Chatterjee and Anubrata Mondal on corruption charges, with Chatterjee serving as the education minister at the time.

Truth, Love and Non-Violence: Rahul Gandhi’s Vision of Hinduism

0

[dropcap]A[/dropcap]fter the mandate of the recent Lok Sabha elections (2024), the parliament has become a real ground where the voice of the opposition also has space. In the debate following the President’s Address, Rahul Gandhi, the Leader of opposition responded by outlining the various problems facing the country. One part of his speech, which probably has been expunged from the proceedings related to the nature of Hinduism. As per him, Hinduism is based on truth and non-violence. “India is a country of non-violence, and not of fear. All our great men have spoken about non-violence and overcoming fear.” Gesturing towards the benches of BJP MPs, Gandhi added: “Those who call themselves Hindus speak all day about violence, hate and untruth.”

Since then many protests by Sadhus have taken place against Rahul’s statement. In Ahmedabad, the Congress office was attacked. RSS Combine is spreading that Rahul has called all Hindus violent etc. On the other side, Rahul has elaborated that what he means by Hinduism is based on truth, nonviolence and love. RSS ideologues are taking a sweep that Nehru to Rahul Gandhi’s ideology is out of touch with reality. As per them, they have restricted only to minority questions to preserve their vote bank.

As such from the INDIA block many have stood with Rahul’s elaboration of the humanistic view of Hinduism. There is some overlap between the use of the word Hinduism and Hindutva currently. As Uddhav Thackeray said his views on Hindutva are the same as Rahul elaborated (about Hinduism). RSS ideologues also criticize Nehru for starting his work of Sampradayikata Virodhi Abhiyan (Campaign against communalism) as being directed against RSS! They also take Nehru on for opposing President Rajendra Prasad’s inauguration at the Somnath temple. They claim that RSS Hindutva derives from Dayanand Saraswati, Swami Vivekanand, Bankim Chandra Chatterjee and Shyama Prasad Mukherjee. As such RSS ideology does not have much to do with the ideologies of Dayanand Saraswati and Swami Vivekanand, except using their names to cover their ideology.

As Hinduism is not a prophet-based religion many interpretations of the same have been used. The very word Hindu is missing in the Holy Hindu scriptures, Vedas, Upanishad, Gita or Manu Smriti. The word was coined by those coming from the West of Sindhu, for whom the word S was used in a restricted manner and for S they used to pronounce H. Sindhu became Hindu and the word initially denoted the area spread from Sindhu river to sea. The earlier religious tendencies prevalent here were Vedic religion (which also can be labelled as Brahmanism), Ajivikas, Tantra, Nath, Shaiva, Buddhism and Jainism in the main.

Later the word Hindu became a conglomerate of different tendencies (barring Buddhism and Jainism) prevailing here. Except for Brahmanism, the other tendencies were called Shramans. The main difference between Brahmanism and Shramanism was the presence of caste and gender hierarchy in Brahmanism. The construction of the term Hinduism has been well explained by historian DN Jha in his Presidential address at the Indian History Congress 2006. He points out “Of Course the Word (Hindu, added) was in use in pre-colonial India, but it was not before late eighteen or early 19th Century that it was appropriated by British scholars.” Since then it has found wider use. From here on the term was used for all in the subcontinent except for those who were Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Muslims and Christians.

As there were no rigid boundaries, the Brahmanical stream projected Vedas and Manusmriti as sacred scriptures. The major understandings of Hinduism also varied. For Ambedkar Hinduism is dominated by Brahmanism, a caste system. That’s what led him to burn Manusmriti. Mahatma Gandhi on the other hand called himself a Sanatani Hindu and wrote in Young India on 6th October 1921 “Hinduism tells everyone to worship God according to his faith or Dharma, and so it lives at peace with all the religions.” A unique concept for interfaith relations and pluralism! Now Rahul Gandhi while talking about Hinduism harps on truth, love and non-violence as being the core of Hinduism.

The word Hindutva was coined by Chandranath Basu in 1892 and linked it with the idealism of attaining spiritual heights. At the political level, the word Hindutva was introduced and defined by Savarkar in his book ‘Essentials of Hindutva’. (1923) His Hindutva is based on the Aryan race, this Holy land (from Sindhu to Seas) and Culture (Brahmanical). Savarkar was very critical of Buddhism’s non-violence and attributed India’s weakness to non-violence propagated by Buddhism. This is a warped understanding of our History. There was no country in the modern sense, and even if we grant Kingdoms equal to country we need to remember Emperor Asoka adopted Buddhism and his empire was the largest in Ancient India. He defined Hindu as one who regarded this land as his fatherland and Holy land.

RSS takes off from Savarkar and regards Islam and Christianity as foreign religions and upholds the ancient Holy Scriptures (Manu Smriti e.g.). RSS has made violence as part of its creed and its head office has an exhibition of various armaments, which are worshipped on the Dussehra day. RSS shakhas have spread Hate by demonizing Muslim kings like Khilji, Babar, and Aurangzeb and glorifying Hindu Kings like Rana Pratap, Shivaji and Prithviraj Chauhan. It had also been critical of the national movement as people of all religions participated in it. It claims to represent the Hindus, as it takes up emotive issues like temple destructions, Cow beef, and forcible conversions. The Hate spread by RSS was pointed out by none other than Sardar Vallabh bhai Patel after banning RSS in 1948, “All their speeches were full of communal poison, as a final result of the poison, the country had to suffer the sacrifice of the invaluable life of Gandhiji.”   

While leaders like Mahatma Gandhi to Rahul Gandhi have expanded and enhanced the humane aspect of Hinduism, the Savarkar-RSS have trodden the path of hate and consequent violence. While Ambedkar stands to oppose the Brahmanical domination of Hindu practice, Mahatma Gandhi to Rahul, is giving an inclusive and non-violent meaning to Hinduism.

Two Nations, One Friendship: The India-Russia Story

0

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he grand welcome given to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modis’ in Russia has not been taken kindly in the Western capitals because of various reasons. Many in India too are commenting on it in contempt without knowing the warm relationship between the two countries. Indian leaders always received a rousing reception in the Soviet Union. Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi are highly popular names in Russia and all the CIS countries even today. One is the timing of it when NATO allies were meeting in Washington to celebrate 75 years of its formation. The question is why should India bother about it and why is the Western world expecting too much from India. India has been a traditional ally of Russia for a long and it is not a government-imposed thing but the people of both countries understand it. The fact of the matter is that India’s right wing was never comfortable with our ties with Russia. The Gujarat lobby particularly the business one felt that their interests were well built in maintaining relationships with the Western world. Then some liberals are promoted by various American ‘policy organizations’ to promote their interests in the name of ‘democracy’. Just think of a time when Indira Gandhi was taking Indo Russia’s friendship to a new level in 1971, she nationalised the banks and insurance companies, withdrew all the privy purses given to former crowns of different Riyasats and imposed Land Ceiling laws, redistributed land, strengthened Public sector undertakings and implemented reservation for scheduled castes and tribes. Who opposed all these measures? The corporate lobby is supported by Morarji Desai, Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy and others.

While Western liberals were crying foul against the Communist Soviet Union, the same governments were promoting China as a counterforce to the Soviets on one side and Taliban and Islamic fanatics in Pakistan on the other side. It is a fact that the entire global south opted to be part of the Non-Aligned Movement to save itself from the American bullying and standing with Soviet Russia.

The 1990s were the most crucial phase of world politics. In August 1991 there was a coup against Mikhail Gorbachev, the Secretary General of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. That failed but soon there were revolts in many other republics that ceded from the Soviet Union. The Western world rejoiced that their bete noir was now crushed. They started promoting their interest in smaller countries and ignored all these so-called independent countries that were part of the former Soviet Union and were nursed by them. Still, the West wanted to make them hostile against Russia. The Russian Federation was still the world’s largest country and powerful but everyone enjoyed the ‘fall of the Communist Empire. Indian liberals too were happy as they felt the Indian establishment would be tilting more towards the United States and other Western countries. Most of them were speaking about Russia as if people were dying of hunger and malnutrition. Western commentators rejoice in mocking Russia when speaking about that country but those who have seen Moscow and other places can vouch that a metro in Moscow is far superior to that in New York. Moscow is truly a beautiful city.

Vladimir Putin may be termed as dictator and undemocratic but there is no doubt in saying that he has brought glory to Russia like a phoenix. It is a country full of confidence and prosperity. Russia’s actions against Ukraine were based on its national interest and to protect Russian-speaking people from what it alleged were the Nazis there. The fact that NATO has been trying to encircle Russia is a well-known fact. How can Indians forget that they did the same? Supporting China and then promoting Pakistan’s anti-India rhetoric was part of that attempt to encircle India too. Today, the West wants us to believe that Russia is a junior partner of China. In their hatred and contempt for Russia, they can go to any length even not asking for elections in Ukraine. How is Zelensky being allowed as leader of Ukraine when the man has arrested all the dissenters and political opponents? Russia tried to negotiate and withdrew its forces from Kiev but that was considered a weakness and now it seems NATO is preparing for a showdown with Russia which will be dangerous and only take us to World War III. The world can’t afford it but then you can not bring peace by humiliating Russia which is growing more powerful and has bigger acceptance globally right from Africa to Asia and Latin America.

Unfortunately in India, we all suffer from amnesia of the Western media propaganda about the word left and socialism and its relation with Russia. Even when the tide is turning in a different direction in Europe after the recent elections in France. In Britain too, left socialist forces will be strengthened in future. In India, we somehow have become victims of Western Propaganda as far as Russia is concerned. Narendra Modi just finished his trip to Russia. As usual, Russia gave him a huge welcome. Both the countries are playing their politics. Some are for their domestic constituency while for Russia it is addressing the global elite that Russia or Vladimir Putin is not a pariah. Frankly speaking, many of the comments in India about Russia suffer from hatred towards the left. Some of these experts feel as if Russia is suffering after the Americans and Europeans have put their sanctions on them. Well, these sanctions don’t even work for a country like North Korea. Every country has its strategy and North Korea too may be a matter of joke for us but look at their capital city Pyongyang which is beautiful and only shows that we should not make our opinion based on the Western media narrative.

The Western World defines communities, societies and people as per its conveniences and we have just been following it. Russia has been a global power and the world owes to them to defeat the Nazi forces of Hitler during the second world war.

The election of President Putin became a butt of jokes for everyone including political leaders. They forgot that Russia, even when it was the Soviet Union, never had the governance structure followed by the West. China too had a similar pattern for their governance structure. They have their critique about Western democracy, which is a fast-turning right controlled by the big-bag corporations. Democracy or not is an internal matter of Russia and they will deal with it but the fact is that Russia is the fastest growing economy and the World Bank itself has put it among the High Income Countries.

The fact is that Russia is a powerful country with enormous energy resources. It has no issue about land mass. It knows what is good for us. Most importantly, it has stood with India through thick and thin. The India-Russia friendship started immediately after our independence. Even during independence, a large number of freedom fighters got support from Russia.

Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was highly impressed with the Soviet Union and Indira Gandhi gave it a new height. We all know how the Americans and Brits created a hostile environment in 1971 and it was the Soviet Union that came in open support of India during the War with Pakistan and the result was the creation of Bangladesh.

What I wish to state here is that the Indo-Russia relationship is time-tested. Of course, after the 1990s event when many republics broke away from Russia, the Western world and much of India felt that Russia was a gone case but Vladimir Putin has brought it back to new heights. Today, Russia is not isolated but helping create a multipolar world. With Mali-Niger-Burkina Faso throwing the French American forces out of their soil, we are witnessing a new wave of anti-colonial movement in Africa and Latin America. One can not ignore how the people’s résistance in Bolivia foiled a coup attempt by the military there against the President.

People of the global south now realise how in the name of democracy, the Western world created unrest in various countries and intervened. The issues of India will be resolved by the people of India and those trying to find its solution in Brussels or Washington will not succeed as it is the people in our states, in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Bengal, Tamilnadu elsewhere will decide what is good or bad for India. Let us not mock Russia and its support to India which is based on a historic relationship with two people. Don’t forget Raj Kapoor’s immortal ‘Mera Juta Hai Jaapani, Ye Patloon Englistani, Sar Pe Laal Topi RusiPhir Bhi Dil Hai Hindustani‘ still reverberating in the air in Russia. Awara Hoon is one of the most popular songs there. Russian literature has been hugely popular in India. So, this relationship is not merely based on military alliance but also cultural one. Except for the Western-dependent Indian urban elite, Russia remains in the heart of the rest of the working-class Indians who enjoyed the pro-people policies and programmes of the government.

Countries have the right to decide about their foreign policies. India is as much independent as Russia and both countries today are redefining their relationship. I am sure even if the governments change here and there this relationship will remain the same and grow further. It is similar to the Western World. The first visit of a British Prime Minister, normally, is to visit the White House, whether she is a Tory or a Labour. Let India and Russia celebrate their historic relationship which stands on rock solid foundations. Let us not mock it for our petty political considerations.

Celebrate the Indo-Russian friendship.

From Custody to Coffin: The Tragic Tale of Newly Wed Abu Siddiq Halder

0

Kolkata: Twenty-two-year-old Abu Siddiq Halder, a resident of Ghatakkultala, South 24 Parganas, West Bengal, had travelled from Karnataka to be by his mother’s side as she underwent surgery. However, this visit to his parents became his last as Abu became a victim of his destiny.

Call it family feud or police brutality, Abu, the only son of his parents, who travelled in search of a better livelihood in Karnataka, died within days of being granted bail. His family claims that the youth succumbed to internal injuries inflicted on him by police when he was arrested as a suspect in a theft case.

Abu, a young man in his early twenties, in the pictures shared by his family looks full of life. He seemed to have a liking for bikes and cars.

“My only son was here to ensure his mother was treated well. But look, we have lost him forever for a crime that he never committed,” wailed his father, Yasin Halder.

According to Abu’s family members, on June 30, some valuable jewellery was stolen from his uncle, Mohsin Halder’s residence. Abu was arrested by the police following the FIR filed by his uncle at the Dholahat police station.

What followed was a nightmare for this young man, who had been married only seven months ago.  

Narrating the torture inflicted by the police, his uncle Sujauddin said, “Three police stood on his chest, while others bashed him up. He was even subjected to electric shock. When Abu was released on bail, we saw that his body was covered with wounds and marks that were proof of the brutality that the boy had to endure when in custody.”

The family claimed that the youth, since his ‘release on bail’ was ailing and had to be rushed to a hospital in Mathurapur, where his condition deteriorated. Following this, he was rushed to Kolkata’s Chittaranjan Medical College. Due to the non-availability of bed, he was taken to Swastik Seva Sadan, where Abu breathed his last.

“The boy had several internal injuries. His kidneys got damaged due to the torture that he had to endure while in police custody,” claimed Sujauddin.

However, when eNewsroom contacted Manas Chatterjee, Inspector-in-Charge of Dholahaat Police Station, where the alleged torture took place, he said, “He was in perfect health when released. We aren’t aware of any torture that he had to endure.”

This is not the only stand-alone case of deaths caused by torture inflicted on the arrestee during police custody in West Bengal.

“We live in a nation where the Prime Minister says offenders can be identified based on their looks and clothes. So, the police officers, who hail from higher castes, have a perception that Muslims commit crimes. So, when a case is filed even before the investigation is complete, they believe that the suspect has committed the crime and hence at times torture them with the sole intention of making them accept the crime that they never committed,” said Khurshid Alam, state secretary of the Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR).

Alam claimed that West Bengal, which is regarded as a ‘haven’ for Muslims, has many from the community languishing in jails for over a decade for petty offences that they might not have even committed. “Lack of representation adds to their agony,” he said.

Alam added, “We will be approaching the governor in this case, asking him to use his constitutional rights to ask the West Bengal government to share the action taken report just like he did in the Dinajpur flogging case.”

Sharp rise in number of lynching cases and custodial deaths has made activists spring into action.
“Number of crimes against Muslims is on the rise in Bengal but the people in power are maintaining silence, so we will meet the governor as well as hold a protest or press conference with the grieving family members soon in Kolkata,” Umar Awais, an activist, told eNewsroom.

He further informed that a delegation will be going to meet the victim’s family.. 

Mob Lynching Shadows Hemant Soren’s Confidence Win in Ranchi

0

Ranchi: Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren won a vote of confidence today. Later, his cabinet ministers took the oath of secrecy in the presence of the Governor of Jharkhand. However, when Soren was about to prove his majority inside the assembly in Ranchi, another incident of mob lynching was reported in the state capital.

Thirty-year-old Akhtar Ansari, a father of four children, was accused of goat theft and beaten to death in Tatisilve, Ranchi. Akhtar’s nephew Irshad, who received a call on Sunday night, said, “When I got the call, I could only hear ‘Maaro, Maaro (beat him)’. There was so much noise. He was not a thief.”

When family members reached the spot, they found Akhtar’s unconscious body with several severe injury marks on his legs and head. “But when we went to the police station, we were told that he was a thief, which is not true,” added Irshad.

Jharkhand is one of the few states in India that has passed an anti-mob lynching law. However, the bill has been returned by the government with some objections.

Significantly, in the last two years, Jharkhand police have not accepted that any mob lynching took place and have either claimed that the person killed was by only two people or that it was an accident. This occurred in the case of Irshad Ansari on August 22, 2023, in Ramgarh and the recent case of an Imam in Hazaribagh.

While this is the second alleged mob lynching case in Jharkhand, at least ten Muslims have reportedly been killed across the country since June 4, when the counting for the new government at the center took place. This includes three Muslims allegedly lynched in Bengal.

A concerned citizen of Ranchi, Tanweer Ahmad, has written an open letter to Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi, TMC chief Mamata Banerjee, Samajwadi Party supremo Akhilesh Yadav, and several other INDIA bloc leaders and chief ministers, including Hemant Soren, urging them to take immediate strict action on the issue. Not only should they raise the issue inside and outside the parliament but also work to stop mob lynching in their respective states.

It will be important to see how Hemant Soren deals with this most inhuman crime as there is resentment among the Muslim community on the issue. Champai Soren, the former chief minister in the new cabinet, also took oath as a minister in the Hemant Soren government. He was a minister in the earlier government. Along with him, three new faces—Baidyanath Ram, Irfan Ansari, and Dipika Pandey—have joined the government. The old faces, Banna Gupta, Mithilesh Thakur, Bebi Devi, Hafizul Hasan, Rameshwar Uraon, and Satyanand Bhokta, remain part of the new cabinet too. Hemant Soren’s younger brother Basant could not find a place in the cabinet.

A commission for displacement issues in Jharkhand was also announced by Hemant Soren while talking to reporters. “We will draft a plan soon. We will also survey the socio-economic situation of displaced people, assess what they received and did not receive when they were displaced. A policy will be formulated accordingly,” said Soren.

A New Dawn for Labour: Understanding the UK’s Electoral Shift

0

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he smooth and quick transfer of power in the United Kingdom speaks volumes about the great democratic tradition in that country. The UK election results came out during the day and by the afternoon outgoing Prime Minister Rishi Sunak went to Buckingham Palace to tender his resignation. By the time he stepped out, Labour leader Keir Starmer was appointed the Prime Minister by the King and within minutes he addressed the nation at the historic entrance of No 10-downing street. The Prime minister paid tribute to his predecessor Rishi Sunak and acknowledged his contribution to Britain. Within hours, the Prime Minister announced his cabinet and the transfer of power was completed without any pomp and show. Britain, that way, is a great example, unlike the United States where the new President takes oath nearly two months after the results are out in November in great pomp and shows that both forms of government are based on majoritarianism and revolve around the white power elite of these countries.

The outcome of the result might sound music to many who might dance upon hearing the word ‘labour’ as in most of the world, the term is almost deleted in the ‘vocabulary’ of political discourse. In the United States, there is no Labour. There is a fight between two parties of white ruling elite dominated by corporate interests with little interest for the common person. Now, the Labour Party returned to power after 14 years and with a massive majority but are the Conservatives decimated in the UK? Has the Labour Party anything to do with the left politics? What brought Labour to power in the UK?

The fact is that the historical route of the Conservative Party does not indicate the growth of ‘left-wing’ political forces in Britain. The fact is this landslide to the Labour Party has more to do with the faulty electoral system that the UK has been following termed as First Past the Post System which resulted in a huge gap between the vote share and the number of seats. FPTP can be useful if there are only two to three parties as well as a high voter turnout. In the absence of it, the mandate can always be haunting though at the end of the day, it does not matter how much the vote share, it is the number of seats that matters.

The fact of the matter is that out of 650 seats, the Labour Party has won 412 seats which is almost 65% of seats though the vote share was merely 34%. Its rival Conservative Party with 24% vote share acquired 121 seats. Liberals got 71 seats with 12% votes. Another right-wing under the name Reformist Party, though, only got 4 seats but with a 14% vote share. Led by Nigel Farage, Reformists are being blamed for the rout of the Tory government. Conservatives, Liberals and Reformists mostly hail from the same variety of political ideologies of the right wing. Their combined vote share is much more powerful than that of Labour. The left-leaning groups are mostly independent and Green Party.  Interestingly, Labour could only increase its vote share by about 2% from 2019 when it fought under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn who contested as an independent candidate and won from Islington North constituency by over 7,000 votes defeating the nearest Labour Party rival. Corbyn has been representing this constituency since 1983 and has won for a record 11 times.

Many people might be happy to see the return of a ‘Labour’ government after one and a half decades but is it so? Leave aside the ‘vote share and seat got’ issue, the fact is most of the Western electoral system particularly influenced by British and American models is already captured by the right-wing capitalist forces. The quality of the ‘Western democratic model’ is in its propaganda and comparison with the Russian and Chinese systems even though both the countries are today a powerhouse and rising high economically. Look at the rise of other powerful groups in the UK like Liberal Democrats and Reformists both ideologically close to Conservatives but is ‘Labour’ truly dedicated to the left or the working classes? The problem with the ‘liberal democracies’ in the world is their hypocrisy on human rights issues. If the Labour Party was truly dedicated to the idea as its name suggests then how come powerful leaders like Jeremy Corbyn were thrown away from the party? Is it because he was considered more radical and a threat to the Empire and its elite? How is the current leadership of Labour different from the Conservatives? The brazen shamelessness of Kier Stramer in refusing to condemn the Israeli brutalities and assault on Gaza shocked all those who filled the Streets of the United Kingdom demanding a complete ceasefire in Gaza. It was Kier responsible for humiliating and ousting Jeremy Corbyn and other left-leaning leaders from the Labour Party. Most of these leaders fought independently won with a handsome margin and defeated their nearest Labour rivals. The poll results suggest that the British electorate is swinging between different conservative forces and Labour got acceptability because it threw away radical left forces led by Jeremy Corbyn. So essentially, the British political system is highly dominated and controlled by the Conservatives who may not be the Conservative Party but also Labour, Liberal and Reformists.

The Crisis of the Electoral System

The British model of the electoral system or simply FPTP is not reflective of the real verdict of the people. It is manipulative of the power elite and therefore most of the time legitimizes a ‘minority’ government as ‘majority. All the colonies of the ‘Empire’ have this system which is used by the power elite of those countries using or misusing the contradiction among different groups. The difference between vote share and seat won is too high. The Labour got nearly 34% of the total votes polled out of 60% votes that were polled during these elections. Which simply means 40% of people did not vote during the election. Now, in terms of seats, the party got 412 seats out of 650 which is nearly 64%. Under the Proportional Electorate System, Labour with a 34% vote share would have just got 221 seats much below the majority mark. Conservatives with a 21% vote share would have got 156 instead of 121 which they have at the moment. Liberals with a 12% vote share got 71 seats while Reformists with a 14% vote share got just 4 seats. Under the Proportionate system, Liberals could have got 78 and Reformists 91. Even a 4-seat Green Party with a 7% vote would have got nearly 46 seats.

How credible is the electoral system where the party gets 34% of votes which also means 66% of votes that were polled did vote against you? Interestingly, a party with a 14% vote share get just 4 seats while that with a 12% vote share 71 seats. Now, how can such a system be justified as ‘democratic’? We all have the same crisis and the result is that the ruling parties and government rarely listen to people’s voices. The amount of massive street protests that London witnessed in support of Palestine was always looked down upon by the power elite and the media. The governments these days speak through the power elite and the opposition leader spoke the language of the prime minister when he openly supported the previous government’s stand on Palestine.

No change in Foreign Policy

Western democracies are liberal to a large extent related to individual freedom, right to faith, criticism of the government and allowing protests in the streets but at the same point in time we need to understand why a leader like Jeremy Corbyn was ousted from Labour. Why he has been a persona non grata for the ‘liberal’ circles? A similar thing happened in the United States where Bernie Sanders is despised by the ruling elite. The liberal democracies couldn’t accept Julian Assange and felt him the biggest threat. It needs to be understood why these democracies do not listen to the voices of protests in the streets.

Broadly, Western democracy will remain pro-capitalist and market-driven and nothing much is expected to change on foreign policy matters though the new Prime Minister has already rescinded the Rwanda policy for refugees which is a great step in the right direction. The Tory government wanted to privatise the prestigious National Health Services but could not do so. The railway network is already in distress. Will the new government take initiatives to strengthen these services or will it be the same government that was headed by Tony Blair?

The issue of minorities and immigrants is extremely important and resulted in the victory of four independent candidates who defeated Labour candidates. The party has to see whether it will follow the ‘right tilt of Tony Blair or work differently, particularly on the issue of Palestine. It needs to be understood that the combined vote share of the right-wing parties is much higher than it and if it ignores wider concern of minorities and immigrants then it might lose the support of progressive forces as well as ethnic minorities then Britain might see the rise of radical left forces in the coming years. Unlike the United States, Britain still has space for minorities and immigrants in the political structure. Will Jeremy Corbyn and other leaders emerge more powerful in the coming years or the pressure of capitalism?

Lesson for India

A democracy is successful when its institutions are robust. Britain has a powerful legacy in that regard. The election process is extremely simple and voting opens at 7 am and continues till 10 pm. The parliament still is responsible and debates there are worth watching. Prime Minister’s Question hour with the leader of the opposition is extremely fascinating but then we can’t have that in India.

The New Parliament has 23 Muslim members (a big country like India has just 24) and over 60% of the members belong to ethnic minorities reflecting Britain’s diversity. One thing needs to be clarified. A criticism of the British system does not mean we are better than them. They have a robust system and more over basic curtsies among the political class they remain far superior to us. The swiftness with which the new government took charge within a day remains remarkable. Everything was done without any chest thumping or ‘victory’ speeches. It is also important to understand the difference between ‘right-wing’ or Conservatives in Britain, Europe and India. The Conservatives or right wing there are mostly against immigration policies of the government but none of them have ventured inside the personal lives of people. Right-wing in India and its neighbours are religious fanatics who have issues with your personal choices whether food, faith or marriage. There are no hate speeches and diversity of representation is always a plus point for political parties.

Britain’s elections have big lessons for us and our political class. That elections in vibrant democracies today are on the ballot paper and not through EVMs is a reality. Secondly, we did not hear any complaints of electoral malfunctioning or fraud. The counting and declaration process was simple and Prepoll surveys or Exit polls were not hyped. The prime minister did not take time to vacate his official bungalow and went to submit his resignation to the King when results were just coming in and he conceded his defeat gracefully. The transfer of power was so swift and meticulous that there was no time for any confusion and uncertainty.  Yes, the electoral system has issues of representation\ and vibrant democracies find their solution. Britain will certainly have to look into it as this might become a major issue in the coming days.

Let us hope the new government will fulfil the aspirations of the people but expecting a different perspective on Ukraine and Israel will be next to impossible as foreign policy matters in these countries are mostly static and fixed with the United States. A change in its Ukraine or Palestine policy will need Jeremy Corbyn at the helm of the affair which does not seem a possibility, in near future.

Historical Reckoning: The Emergency, the RSS, and the BJP’s Political Narrative

0

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he speaker of Lok Sabha, Om Birla is mired in many controversies. When he started his 2nd term as Lok Sabha (Parliament) Speaker he read out a resolution against the Emergency imposed in 1975 by Indira Gandhi. The background of that emergency was the rising Sampoorna Kranti (Total Revolution) Movement, led by Jaya Prakash Narayan (JP). The movement of students of Gujarat which began to protest against the rise in the bill, was soon joined by the students of Bihar. This spiralled into students requesting JP to lead the movement at the national level. JP gave the call to gherao (encircling) the assemblies and parliament. On 15th June 1975 in a huge rally in Ramlila Maidan, Delhi, he called the military and police to defy the orders of the Government. Mrs. Gandhi’s election was challenged and on flimsy grounds, she was disqualified by the High Court. The Supreme Court gave a stay on this on 24 June.

Seeing the growing turmoil in the country, Mrs Gandhi imposed the emergency using Article 352 of the Constitution on 25th June 1975. This lasted for 21 months, and she lifted it. Mrs Gandhi regretted the excesses during this period in a speech in Yavatmal on 24th January 1978. Even Rahul Gandhi offered apologies for the excesses during the Emergency. While the opposition leaders were arrested Lalu Prasad Yadav who was in jail all through an emergency, in a recent article along with a journalist (The Sangh Silence on Emergency, (i.e. June 29, 2024) wrote that though the opposition was arrested it was treated with dignity by Indira Gandhi. For many years BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) has been observing the 25 June as the dark period of Indian democracy.

The first major change that occurred around that time was that Jaya Prakash Narayan, who was one of the tall leaders of the freedom movement, accepted RSS to be part of the agitation launched by him. RSS’s Nanaji Deshmukh, who has recently been awarded Bharat Ratna by the BJP regime, became the central organizer of the movement. It gave respectability to the RSS as it was under eclipse due to its trained ex-Pracharak Godse having killed the Father of the Nation. As some people pointed out to JP that RSS is a fascist organization, JP in his naivety or whatever went on to say, if RSS is fascist I too am a fascist!

JP’s call to the army and police not to obey the orders was very unnerving and this precipitated the intensification of agitations, gherao of Parliament and Assemblies. RSS had played an important role in the Sampoorna Kranti movement, which gave it credibility in people’s eyes. After the imposition of the Emergency, when many of its members were arrested, it started bowing to the ruling regime. Many of its members signed Mafinamas (Mercy petitions) and were released.

BJP’s effort is to project itself as the Hero of Resistance of Emergency. Prabhash Joshi, the eminent journalist brought out the real truth in his article in Tehelka Magazine, “Balasaheb Deoras, then RSS chief, wrote a letter to Indira Gandhi pledging to help implement the notorious 20-point programme of Sanjay Gandhi. This is the real character of the RSS… You can decipher a line of action, a pattern. Even during the Emergency, many among the RSS and Jana Sangh who came out of the jails gave mafinamas. They were the first to apologize. Only their leaders remained in jail: Atal Behari Vajpayee [most of the time in hospital], LK Advani, even Arun Jaitley. However, the RSS did not fight the Emergency. So why is the BJP trying to appropriate that memory?” Deoras’s letters were also published in a book, ‘Hindu Sangthan aur Sattavadi Rajniti’, authored by him and published by Jagruti Prakashan Noida. The same was confirmed by TV Rajeshewar who was Deputy Chief of IB.

Press censorship and excesses on the issue of vasectomy and the demolition of slums were painful parts of this period. On the contrary, for the last ten years, we have been witnessing the arrest of public intellectuals, participants in peaceful struggles, arrest of journalists, the mainstream media bowing to the regime, the opponents of Government policies being called anti-Nationals, the suspension of 146 members of parliament among others. The violations which took place during this period were aided by the foot soldiers of the patriarch of the ruling party, the RSS. The situation for the last decade has been worse than the declared emergency. This is what prompted the critic of the 1975 Emergency, Nayantara Sahgal to call the last decade an undeclared emergency, “Well, we have an undeclared Emergency; there is no doubt about that. We have seen a huge, massive attack on the freedom of expression. We have seen innocent, helpless Indians killed because they did not fit into the RSS’s view of India. … So we have a horrendous situation, a nightmare which is worse than the Emergency… It is a nightmarish situation which has no equal.“

And to cap it all the leader of BJP, Lal Krishna Advani also called the last decade an undeclared Emergency, “Today there is an undeclared emergency in the country. Even senior BJP leader Lal Krishna Advani hinted the same after the government was formed but after pressure from RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh), he became silent…” While we look back to the period of Emergency 1975, we need to introspect and ward off the periods like undeclared Emergency which the country has been witnessing from the last decade.

Filing mercy petitions to the rulers is the norm with the Hindu right wing. Savarkar wrote five mercy petitions when he was in Andamans, Atal Bihari Vajpayee wrote on similar lines to get released during his arrest in the 1942 uprising stating that he had nothing to do with the ‘Quit India’ movement and during the emergency Balasaheb Deoras wrote to Indira Gandhi twice to patch up, and then requested Vinoba Bhave to ask Indira Gandhi to lift the ban on RSS. Also many BJP leaders like the late Arun Jaitley compared the Emergency period to Hitler’s regime. The crucial difference between the two is the encouragement of foot soldiers by the fascist regime. It was brown shirts in Germany, in India there are many vigilante groups which flourished during the last decade.