Revolutionary Bhagat Singh and Freedom Movement

May 20, 2016

History is always subject of debates for various reasons. The one which cropped up recently around Bhagat Singh had a new dimension to ‘looking at the past’. This relates to changed perception of a word in the context of current global terrorism. In one of the talk shows, which is the noisiest of them all, the anchor attacked legendary historian Bipan Chandra and the book ‘India’s struggle for Independence’ for calling Bhagat Singh and his comrades as terrorists. The anchor of the show accused the writers of this book, as intentionally maligning patriots, calling them court historians of Congress. Taking off from this BJP MP Anurag Thakur said that martyrs are being denigrated in the book and MHRD Minister Smriti Irani came with the verdict that this is the academic murder of sacrifice of great freedom fighters.

The book being referred to was published 28 years ago and is probably the most popular and outstanding book on the subject. It is true that the book refers to all these revolutionaries like Prafulla Chaki, Khudiram Bose, Madan Lal Dhingra, Sachin Sanyal, Bhagat Singh and Rashbehari Bose as ‘revolutionary terrorists’. The historians, Bipan Chandra and his colleagues, use the word, ‘revolutionary terrorists’ due to the fact, that this precisely was the self perception of these young freedom fighters. In response to Gandhi’s criticism of these revolutionaries, one of them, Bhagawati Charan Vora wrote ““Thus has terrorism been born in the country. It is a phase, a necessary, an inevitable phase of the revolution. Terrorism is not the complete revolution and the revolution is not complete without terrorism… (it) brings hopes of revenge and redemption to the oppressed masses, it gives courage and self-confidence to the wavering, it shatters the spell of the superiority of the ruling class and raises the status of the subject race in the eyes of the world, because it is the most convincing proof of a nation’s hunger for freedom.” (from Bhagwati Charan Vora, Philosophy of Bomb)

It is another matter that over a period of time this group of revolutionaries changed their ideology as reflected in Ramprasad Bismil’s advice to give up “the desire to keep revolvers and pistols” and instead to joins “the open movement”. Bhagat Singh’s own views evolved over time, and he had, by 1929, come to the conclusion that Marxism and broad-based mass movements were the right road to revolution, not individual heroic action. In 1931, addressing his comrades from jail, he presented his nuanced understanding of terrorism as a strategy for action. Contrary to those who are criticizing the book for using the word terrorists for Bhagat Singh and comrades, the term as such was used by the revolutionaries themselves. It was the time when this was not looked down as it is today (from 2001 onwards) due to multiple global dynamics related mainly to control over oil resources.

This book ‘India’s Struggle for Independence’ was first published in 1988. Lately from over a decade Historian Bipan Chnadra; when writing about Bhagat Singh on various occasions; did not use this term terrorist for him. In his introduction to Bhagat Singh’s pamphlet, ‘Why I am an Atheist’, Chandra refers to him as follows, “Bhagat Singh was not only one of India’s greatest freedom fighters and revolutionary socialist, but also one of its early Marxist thinkers and ideologues.” Chandra’s co-authors point out that Chandra held Bhagat Singh in very high esteem and highlighted his popularity in the chapters which he wrote. As per Chandra Bhagat Singh was immensely popular all over the country and people did not take food after hearing about his hanging.

It seems the Smiriti Irani and company is trying to take advantage of use of the word terrorist in the book to do away with book itself, as this book has made scathing criticism of communal politics in India. The reading of book makes it clear that Muslim and Hindu communalists both were not part of freedom movement and did not participate in ‘anti-British’ nationalist movement. This is a fact which communalists want to hide and display their patriotism by beating their breasts on such issues like use of word terrorist for Bhagat Singh.

There are others from the RSS parivar who think this book has revolved around Nehru and the left alone. Their reading is partisan and motivated. If one reads the book it will become clear that the focus of the book is on the aspects of the anti colonial movement and it refers to all the strands of anti British movement which took place. Gandhi and Nehru both have an unenviable place in the movement; still the deeper dynamics of movement is always at the fore in the book. It gives full justice to Bhagat Singh, Surya Sen and their participation in anti British movement; it has Bose, Patel, Maulana Azad, Jinnah and Ambedkar all in the proper context. The deeper mechanism of mass mobilization, major steps of the movement; its challenges and its evolution over a period of time are outlined in a very objective manner.

This becomes possible as Chandra and his colleagues are focusing more on phenomenon and underlying ideologies rather than mere individuals or as clash of the giants of freedom movement. Chandra’s co-authors point out, “India’s Struggle for Independence” is the balanced treatment of all political trends, from Liberals to Socialists and Communists, and of all movements, from 1857 to Ghadar to INA, Swadeshi to Quit India, peasant and trade union movements, anti-caste movements and states’ peoples’ movements, and of all leaders, from Dadabhai Naoroji to Birsa Munda, and Lokmanya Tilak, and from Gandhiji and Sardar Patel to Jayaprakash Narayan and Aruna Asaf Ali.”

Since the word terrorism has assumed a totally different meaning currently, since Prof Bipan Chandra is no more, the surviving authors in consultation with other historians can definitely coin a word like ‘militant revolutionaries’ or some such for these great freedom fighters. BJP has played with history to suit its political agenda. In this issue it is looking at one more opportunity to do away with a valuable text book on Independence movement to hide the fact that Hindutva ideology has no role in freedom movement.

Comments

Add new comment

Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.

India’s Composite Culture and Muslim Stalwarts

Ram Puniyani

August 9,2020

Contrary to present impression that Muslims are separatists due to whom the partition of India took place, the truth is that Muslims contributed to freedom movement and upheld India’s composite culture in equal measure. The partition process, mainly due to British policy of ‘divide and rule’ well assisted by Hindu and Muslim communalists is being hidden from the popular vision in India and Muslims in general are held responsible for the same. Not only that the communal historiography introduced by British to pursue their policies has become the bedrock of communal politics and worsening of the perceptions about Muslims is in progress in India.

Yet another example of this has been a series of tweets by the bureaucrat, who is close to retirement, K. Nageshwar Rao. Contrary to the service rules he has made statements, through his tweets which are appreciative of RSS-BJP and demonise the stalwarts Muslim leaders who not only contributed to the freedom movement but also later gave valuable service in laying the foundation of Independent India. As per Rao, his tweets he accuses Maulana Azad and the other Muslim Education ministers of “deracination of Hindus”. After naming “Maulana Abul Kalam Azad — 11 years (1947-58)”; “Humayun Kabir, M C Chagla & Fakruddin Ali Ahmed — 4 years (1963-67)”; and, “Nurul Hassan — 5 years (1972-77)”, he posts: “Remaining 10 years other Leftists like VKRV Rao.”

He points out that their policies were meant to “1. Deny Hindus their knowledge, 2. Vilify Hinduism as collection of superstitions, 3. Abrahamise Education, 4. Abrahamise Media & Entertainment, 5. Shame Hindus about their identity! and 6. Bereft of the glue of Hinduism Hindu society dies.”

Then he goes on to praise RSS-BJP for bringing the glory back to Hindus. These statements of his on one hand promote the Hate and on the other tantamount to political statement, which civil servants should not by making. CPM politburo member Brinda Karat has written a letter to Home Minister Amit Shah to take suitable action against the erring bureaucrat.

Rao begins with Maulana Abul kalam Azad. Surely Azad was one of the major leaders of freedom movement, who was also the youngest President of INC, in 1923 and later between 1940 to 1945. He opposed the partition process tooth and nail till the very last. As the Congress President in 1923 he wrote a remarkable Para, symbolizing the urge for Hindu Muslim unity, “If an angel descends from heaven and offers me Swaraj in 24 hours on condition that I give up Hindu Muslim Unity, I will refuse. Swaraj we will get sooner or later; its delay will be a loss for India, but loss of Hindu Muslim unity will be a loss for human kind”. His biographer Syeda Hamid points out “He spoke without an iota of doubt about how debacle of Indian Muslims has been the result of the colossal mistakes committed by Muslim League’s misguided leadership. He exhorted Muslims to make common cause with their Hindu, Sikh, Christian fellow countrymen.” He was the one who promoted the translation of Hindu scriptures Ramayan and Mahabharat in to Persian.

Surely Mr. Rao, neither has read Azad or read about him nor knows his contributions to making of Modern India. While today, the ideological formation to which Mr. Rao seems to be pledging his commitment is critical of all that happened during Nehru era, it was during this period when as education minister Azad was shepherding the formations of IITs, Academies of Science, Lalit kala Academies. It was during this period that the efforts to promote Indian composite culture were undertaken through various steps.

The other stalwarts who are under the hammer have been outstanding scholars and giants in their own field of education. Humayun Kabir, Nurul Hasan, Dr.Zakir Husssain gave matchless ideas and practical contributions in different fields of education. One can say that contrary to the accusations, India could match up to the Computer era, software and associate things, due to creation of large manpower in these areas mainly due to these foundations which were laid down particularly in the field of education during this period.

The charge that these ‘Muslim’ education ministers white washed the bloody Islamic rule is a blind repetition of the offshoot of communal historiography introduced by British. While Kings were ruling for power and wealth, their courts had Hindus and Muslim both officers. The jaundiced vision sees this as a bloody Islamic rule but as a matter of fact the syncretic culture and traditions developed precisely this period. It was during this period that Bhakti Traidtion with Kabir, Tukaram, Namdeo, Tulsidas flourished. It was during this period that humane values of Sufi saints reached far and wide. It was during this period that poets like Rahim and Raskhan produced their classic literature n praise of Hindu Gods.

We also need to remind ourselves that large number of Muslims participated in the freedom Movement. Two scholars Shamsul Islam and Nasir Ahmad have come out with books on the myriad such freedom fighters, to recall just a few names. Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, Zakir Hussain, Syed Mohammad Sharfuddin Kadri, Bakht Khan, Muzzafar Ahmad, Mohammad Abdir Rahman,, Abbas Ali, Asaf Ali, Yusuf Mehrali, Maulana Mazahrul Hague.

These are just a few of the names. The movement, led by Gandhi, definitely laid the foundations where composite Indian culture and respect for all religions, others’ religion was paramount and this is what created Indian fraternity, one of the values which finds its place in the preamble of Indian Constitution.

This blaming of Education ministers who were Muslims is an add-on to the process of Islamophobia in India. So for there have been many actions of Muslim kings which are selectively presented as being bloody, now the post Independent History, where glorious contributions have been made by Muslim leaders are being used to further deepen the divisive process. We need to pay respects to builders of modern India, irrespective of their religion.

Comments

Add new comment

Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.

Palghar lynchings and divisive propaganda

Ram Puniyani

May 2,2020

India has tragically witnessed the phenomenon of lynching becoming dominant during last few years. It was particularly around the issue of Holy Cow-Beef, that lynchings became more prevalent and two communities had to face the brunt of it, Muslims and dalits. The IndiaSpend data showed the rise of the incidents from 2014 and that close to 90% of victims were Muslims or dalits. Some notorious cases of lynchings were the one of Akhlaq, Junaid, Alimuddin Ansari, the beatings of dalits in Una. At another level it is during this period that the noted social worker Swami Agnivesh was also subjected to humiliating beating in the public. The communal color in India by now is so strong that many events, even before the details are known, are looked at from the communal color and false social noises start even before real facts are known.

Nothing can exemplify this more than the tragic lynching of two sadhus and their driver in Gadchinal village, near Palghar, a city nearly 110 Kilomenters from Mumbai. As the news of this tragedy spread the BJP leaders immediately started blaming Muslim minority for the crime. Nalin Kohli in an Interview to a German Channel said so. Not to be left behind Sambit Patra, the BJP spokesperson launched a tirade against the liberals-seculars for their silence on the issue. As the matter stands the truth comes out that those sadhus were travelling to Surat from Kandivli area of Mumbai. It is a period of lockdown and they did not have the permission so they were avoiding the highway travel and going through interior routes. On this route was a village Gadchinale, an Adivasi dominated village where this tragedy took place.

During the lockdown period due to Corona virus the economic and social deprivation of poor people is extreme. Many rumors are floating there. In this village the rumor doing rounds was that a gang of chid lifters is roaming in different guises. Thats what these Sadhus were taken to be. Since the victims were Hindus and culprits are deliberately presumed to be from the other community. One recalls that to trigger the Mumbai violence in 1992-93 the incidence of murder of two Mathadi workers (HIndus) and burning of Bane family (Hindu) in Jogeshwari area of Mumbai, both these were false, these incidents were used as the pretext for the attack on the minorities.

In this case not only BJP leaders, the RSS itself also jumped into fray along with Sadhu Samaj. A vicious atmosphere started building up.

As the incident took place, Palghar case dominated the usual media channels and large sections of social media. The Government of Maharashtra (Shiv Sena+NCP+Congress) stood on the solid ground of truthfulness and arrested nearly 100 culprits, none of them being a Muslim. Interestingly the local body of the village is controlled by BJP and the chief of this body Chitra Chowdhari is a BJP leader. While the Maharashtra Government is standing on the solid ground of the facts of the case, it has also given the warning that those spreading falsehoods will not be spared.

The cruelty of those taking law into their hands is shocking. During the last few years taking law into the hands of the mobs is becoming close to normal. The real reasons are many. One of this being the lack of proper punishment to those who indulge in such dastardly acts. Not only that many of them are in the good books of the ruling establishment and many of them are honored despite their despicable role in such incidents. One recalls that in case of Mohammad Ikhlaq lynching, one of the accused died in the police custoy due to incidentlal disease. Then Union Central Minister Mahesh Sharma landed up to drape his body in tricolor. In another such case of Alimuddin Ansari, when eight of the accused got bail, the Union Minister Jayant Sinha garlanded them. What message it sends down the line?

The other factors contributing to the rise in intensity of violence is the overall social frustration due to life generally becoming more difficult. The rule of BJP has also encouraged intolerance, where people with differing opinions are looked down upon and called anti- Hindu, Anti National etc. Swami Agnivesh who criticised the blind faith, the statements like ‘plastic surgery in ancient India, or divine nature of Barfani Baba in Amarnath was humiliated in public.

The core issue is the dominance of sectarian mindset promoted by the ruling party and its parent organization the RSS. They are waiting to jump at any event which can be given communal color or where the minorities can be demonized. Few news channels, who are playing the role of loud speakers of divisive politics are adding salt to the wounds. The degree of Hate spread in the society has further taken the aid of innumerable social media networks to spread the false hoods down to all the sections of society.

The need for law against lynching needs to be brought in. All those participating in such dastardly violence need to be punished. Before that the whole atmosphere of Hate mongering and feeling that those talking law into their hands can get away with it, needs to be countered strongly. While a prompt police action against such incidents is the need of the hour, those who have made spreading hate as their business need to realize that no country can progress without the feeling of fraternity. Demonizing weaker sections may give them higher TRP, but it is also undermining our path of peace and progress.

Respect for Indian Constitution and rule of law needs to be restored. The fact check mechanisms like AltNews need to be activated much more. And lastly one must applaud the steps taken by the Government of Maharashtra to ensure that justice is done and Hate spreading is checked right in its tracks.

Comments

Beautiful article. We need people like you- the need of the hour.

Add new comment

Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.

‘Shoot the Traitors’: Manufacturing Hate and Violence

Ram Puniyani

February 10,2020

Noam Chomsky is one of the leading peace workers in the world. In the wake of America’s attack on Vietnam, he brought out his classic formulation, ‘manufacturing consent’. The phrase explains the state manipulating public opinion to have the public approve of it policies—in this case, the attack of the American state on Vietnam, which was then struggling to free itself from French colonial rule.

In India, we are witness to manufactured hate against religious minorities. This hatred serves to enhance polarisation in society, which undermines India’s democracy and Constitution and promotes support for a Hindu nation. Hate is being manufactured through multiple mechanisms. For example, it manifests in violence against religious minorities. Some recent ghastly expressions of this manufactured hate was the massive communal violence witnessed in Mumbai (1992-93), Gujarat (2002), Kandhamal (2008) and Muzaffarnagar (2013). Its other manifestation was in the form of lynching of those accused of having killed a cow or consumed beef. A parallel phenomenon is the brutal flogging, often to death, of Dalits who deal with animal carcasses or leather.

Yet another form of this was seen when Shambhulal Regar, indoctrinated by the propaganda of Hindu nationalists, burned alive Afrazul Khan and shot the video of the heinous act. For his brutality, he was praised by many. Regar was incited into the act by the propaganda around love jihad. Lately, we have the same phenomenon of manufactured hate taking on even more dastardly proportions as youth related to Hindu nationalist organisations have been caught using pistols, while police authorities look on.

Anurag Thakur, a BJP minster in the central government recently incited a crowd in Delhi to complete his chant of what should happen to ‘traitors of the country...” with a “they should be shot”. Just two days later, a youth brought a pistol to the site of a protest at Jamia Millia Islamia university and shouted “take Azaadi!” and fired it. One bullet hit a student of Jamia. This happened on 30 January, the day Nathuram Godse had shot Mahatma Gandhi in 1948. A few days later, another youth fired near the site of protests against the CAA and NRC at Shaheen Bagh. Soon after, he said that in India, “only Hindus will rule”.

What is very obvious is that the shootings by those associated with Hindu nationalist organisations are the culmination of a long campaign of spreading hate against religious minorities in India in general and against Muslims in particular. The present phase is the outcome of a long and sustained hate campaign, the beginning of which lies in nationalism in the name of religion; Muslim nationalism and Hindu nationalism. This sectarian nationalism picked up the communal view of history and the communal historiography which the British introduced in order to pursue their ‘divide and rule’ policy.

In India what became part of “social common sense” was that Muslim kings had destroyed Hindu temples, that Islam was spread by force, and that it is a foreign religion, and so on. Campaigns, such as the one for a temple dedicated to the Hindu god Rama to be built at the site where the Babri masjid once stood, further deepened the idea of a Muslim as a “temple-destroyer”. Aurangzeb, Tipu Sultan and other Muslim kings were tarnished as the ones who spread Islam by force in the subcontinent. The tragic Partition, which was primarily due to British policies, and was well-supported by communal streams also, was entirely attributed to Muslims. The Kashmir conflict, which is the outcome of regional, ethnic and other historical issues, coupled with the American policy of supporting Pakistan’s ambitions of regional hegemony, (which also fostered the birth of Al-Qaeda), was also attributed to the Muslims.

With recurring incidents of communal violence, these falsehoods went on going deeper into the social thinking. Violence itself led to ghettoisation of Muslims and further broke inter-community social bonds. On the one hand, a ghettoised community is cut off from others and on the other hand the victims come to be presented as culprits. The percolation of this hate through word-of-mouth propaganda, media and re-writing of school curricula, had a strong impact on social attitudes towards the minorities.

In the last couple of decades, the process of manufacturing hate has been intensified by the social media platforms which are being cleverly used by the communal forces. Swati Chaturvedi’s book, I Am a Troll: Inside the Secret World of the BJP’s Digital Army, tells us how the BJP used social media to spread hate. Whatapp University became the source of understanding for large sections of society and hate for the ‘Other’, went up by leaps and bounds. To add on to this process, the phenomenon of fake news was shrewdly deployed to intensify divisiveness.

Currently, the Shaheen Bagh movement is a big uniting force for the country; but it is being demonised as a gathering of ‘anti-nationals’. Another BJP leader has said that these protesters will indulge in crimes like rape. This has intensified the prevalent hate.

While there is a general dominance of hate, the likes of Shambhulal Regar and the Jamia shooter do get taken in by the incitement and act out the violence that is constantly hinted at. The deeper issue involved is the prevalence of hate, misconceptions and biases, which have become the part of social thinking.

These misconceptions are undoing the amity between different religious communities which was built during the freedom movement. They are undoing the fraternity which emerged with the process of India as a nation in the making. The processes which brought these communities together broadly drew from Gandhi, Bhagat Singh and Ambedkar. It is these values which need to be rooted again in the society. The communal forces have resorted to false propaganda against the minorities, and that needs to be undone with sincerity.

Combating those foundational misconceptions which create hatred is a massive task which needs to be taken up by the social organisations and political parties which have faith in the Indian Constitution and values of freedom movement. It needs to be done right away as a priority issue in with a focus on cultivating Indian fraternity yet again.

Comments