Re: I Write, Therefore I am : Sid Harth
chhotemianinshallah
SWAMI PARTHASARTHY14 December 2009, 12:00am IST
Vedanta is known as Sanatana dharma, meaning eternal principles. It
helps you identify your divine Self to attain an absolute state of
peace and Rising above dogmas, rituals and gurus (Getty Images)
bliss.
Vedanta is known as Sanatana dharma, meaning eternal principles. It is
systematic knowledge that gives the seeker true insight into life. It
draws you towards your innermost core, provides you knowledge that
reveals your real Self. Saint or sinner, your self is essentially
divine. Divinity is the core of every person. Vedanta helps you
identify your divine Self to attain an absolute state of peace and
bliss. That is the goal of all religions, to discover your true
nature. Unfold your real Self. Draw the Divinity out of the layers
that veil It.
Etymologically, the word religion means that which binds one to the
origin. In Sanskrit also, the term yoga means to unite with the Self.
Vedanta excels in its scientific exposition. It expounds the truth
methodically, logically. It does not rely on the authority of a
preceptor. Its truth is its authority. No master or messiah can claim
it. No religion has a hold on it. It belongs to one and all without
distinction of communities or geography. Its universal application
appeals to all lovers of truth.
Vedanta trains you to think independently. It helps you probe into the
essence of the human personality, directs you to study, reflect and
realise the fundamental truth of life. In the past, generations put in
effort to discover the real Self. Later on, some spiritual enthusiasts
brought out their own abridged versions of truth. They were well meant
but their reading of the original truth was feeble. People began to
follow their teaching blindly. They lost their independent reflection
and judgment. Spiritual education was no longer liberal, but led by
the opinion of others. This has plunged people in ignorance, and the
world is steeped in sorrow and suffering.
The root cause of suffering is that people do not look within. They
hardly investigate the truth of life nor exercise their own judgment.
They rely on outside forces to do their thinking. And they function
predominantly on blind faith and mechanical ritual. This is spiritual
suicide. Castes, creeds and sects are ghosts haunting us. The role of
Vedanta is to free you from infatuation with celebrities and educate
you on the eternities.
Religion ought not to be reduced to mere allegiance to personalities.
The present religious systems are governed by maxims and mandates.
There is a saying: “Grammar is the grave of language.” Try to save the
grammar, keep it invariable, and the language will be dead. Just so,
the rigidity of preceptors and precepts saps the vitality of religion.
The intelligentsia, particularly the youth the world over, detest
rigidity. They do not wish to be dictated to by doctrines and dogmas.
They revolt against such unnatural education.
The young ought not to be pestered with ‘Thou shalts’ and ‘Thou shalt
nots’. Whatever is forced is never forceful. Dos and don’ts are not
designed for human beings. Desire for anything increases with
restriction and prohibition. Static precepts, superstitious beliefs
and mechanical rituals ought not to be thrust on people. It frustrates
them. Rather, they need to be educated with the knowledge of life and
living. The higher values of religion have to be presented
systematically and logically to modern intellects. The philosophy of
Vedanta provides answers to seekers of truth. The process may take
time but is sure to elevate.
Extract from The Eternities: Vedanta Treatise by the writer. Website:
www.vedanta-edu.org
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/articlelist/articleshow/5330886.cms
...and I am Sid Harth
chhotemianinshallah
Swami Kriyananda21 December 2009, 12:00am IST
Does the concept of samadhi or union with God, agree with the
teachings of Jesus Christ? Resonance of the East in Christ's teachings
(Getty Images) Most Christians get no hint in churches that the Bible
promises them anything like cosmic consciousness. The best they hope
for is eternity in Heaven, in a body similar to the one they now
inhabit.
No one, however, has a 'corner' on Christ's teachings. God's
revelation through Jesus Christ is common property, for it is truth
itself, and it belongs to no church. Many times progress occurs in our
understanding when one civilisation is exposed to the insights of
another's. Religion, today, stands at the threshold of such an
opportunity. Teachings from the East have already had a strong impact
in America. It has reminded people in there of dormant traditions in
their own faith. For example, the practice of meditation, which was
once a part of Christian practice, is now being revived under the
influence of teachers from India.
A visitor once asked Paramhansa Yogananda, "You call your temples
'churches of all religions'. Why, then, do you place special emphasis
on Christianity?" "It was the wish of Babaji, Yogananda's guru, that i
do so," he replied. "He asked me to interpret the Bible and the
Bhagavad Gita, or Hindu Bible, and to show that the teachings of both
are basically the same. It was with this mission that i was sent to
the West."
By his example as much as by his teachings, Paramhansa Yogananda
turned agnostics into deeply believing Christians. His mission,
indeed, was not to convert anyone to Hinduism, but to revitalise the
Christianity of Christians. He taught, as he himself put it, "the
original Christianity of Christ".
What, then, of our original question? What do the Christian saints say
about their experiences of oneness with God? Christian mystic Meister
Eckhart said of souls that are merged in God, "By grace they are 'God
with God'." "I, who am infinite," wrote St Catherine of Sienna, "seek
infinite works that is, an infinite perfection of love." St Bernard
wrote, " So it will inevitably happen that in saints every human
affection will then, in some ineffable manner, melt away from self and
be entirely transfused into the will of God."
St Simeon felt that a man who has attained the final degree of
perfection is dead and yet not dead, but infinitely more alive in
God... He is inactive and at rest, as one who has come to the end of
all action of his own. He is without thought, since he has become one
with Him who is above all thought. Of St Simeon's experience of
samadhi, his disciple Nicetas Stathos wrote that once, while offering
up a pure prayer to God to be drawn into intimate converse with Him,
he had a vision: Behold, the atmosphere began to shine through his
soul... Quite outside himself, as he gazed with his whole soul at this
light that had appeared to him, it increased bit by bit...and he felt
himself taken, with his whole body, away from the things of earth.
Do not these observations suggest persuasively, the state of oneness
with God, which is known to Indian yogis as samadhi? It would be
instructive for Christians to meditate on Jesus's parable of the
mustard seed, which he likened to the Kingdom of Heaven. The mustard
seed, he said, though tiny, grows eventually to become a tree, "so
that the birds of the air come and lodge in its branches" (Matthew
13:32). Even so, the soul in communion with the Lord expands to
embrace the infinity of consciousness that is God.
Adapted from the writer's The New Path: My Life With Paramhansa
Yogananda, Ananda Sangha. Contact: 9899267698.
chhotemianinshallah
‘I'm seeing him with new eyes'
R. KRITHIKA
Journalist and author Nandita Puri on her book, Unlikely Hero, her
husband Om Puri and more…
LIFE WITH A LEGEND: Nandita Puri with the subject of her book, husband
Om Puri. PHOTO: RAJEEV BHATT
As a journalist, Nandita Puri had interviewed many people but this
interview — or rather series of interviews — was different. For one,
the person facing her was her husband. Secondly, he was no ordinary
person; he was the eminent actor Om Puri. Obviously Nandita Puri had
her task cut out. In Chennai recently for the launch of her book Om
Puri: Unlikely Hero, she spoke about the making of the book and the
controversy that broke out when certain portions relating to Om Puri's
earlier relationships were leaked. Excerpts:
As a journalist you have interviewed many people. How different was it
to interview your husband?
To begin with, it was delightful … Om is extremely articulate, honest
and media-savvy and that makes him a dream profile. Om loves talking
about his childhood and early days of struggle. While describing his
work, he may get a date here or a name there wrong, but his ability to
recollect anecdotes and incidents add depth. However the one big
difference was that if he wanted to retract a statement or an
incident, he would easily arm twist me into it. And if he was hesitant
about something, it was easier for me to convince him to do so. Fringe
benefits of being a spouse!
How easy/difficult was it to detach yourself from the events of his
life?
Mostly easy. I have been a journalist for many years and when I
decided to embark on Om's biography, I was very clear that it was not
going to be a coffee-table book or a panegyric or a eulogy. So it was
easy to deal with his early years as well as his working years.
Describing his relationships was a little difficult...because as a
wife it can be a bit tricky; besides most of the women in his life
were not willing to talk. So I had to rely on Om's opinion on them.
But the most difficult part was trying to bring forth the ‘man' rather
than the actor. And living with the subject with his fluctuating moods
at home can be very difficult for a biographer. Often he would be very
relaxed. Except when he was tired then he would get irritable and say,
“Bas. Enough for today….” I had to wait to catch him in a good mood or
squeeze in time between his shoots to continue… I tried my best to
keep my opinions and prejudices aside.
Was there any event/episode that you particularly liked?
A lot of anecdotes from his childhood days were a mix of pathos and
fun. Every time I read about the time Om asks God to take his mother
away as she lay dying in hospital, I am moved to tears. For a boy of
17 to make a wish like that rather than see her suffer because they
could not afford the medicines to treat her... it must have been very
difficult. I truly realised the magnitude of poverty Om experienced.
Have you learnt anything new about your husband while researching this
book?
Quite a lot. When stalwarts from world cinema speak highly of him, you
realise that he is not only a good actor, he is a legend. Having lived
with him so long in the humdrum of daily existence, you tend to take
his greatness and talent for granted. But after Unlikely Hero, I am
seeing him with new eyes.
Tell us a little about Nandita: likes and dislikes; background;
influences.
I was brought up in Kolkata in a progressive middle class Bengali
Brahmo family; studied first in a Roman Catholic boarding school in
Chandernagore (the other French colony apart from Puducherry); then
English literature from Loreto College and Masters from Jadavpur
University. I worked as a journalist and wrote extensively for The
Telegraph, The Statesman, Sunday Mail, Reader's Digest, TOI group
among others. I also worked as a broadcast journalist. Have also
written a typical Bollywood screenplay “Mera Dil Leke Dekho”, a film
by Punam Sinha.
In 2005 my first collection of short stories Nine On Nine with urban
Indian women as protagonists was published by Rupa. I enjoy reading,
music, travelling, looking after the house and being involved with my
son who is all of 12 .... in between vigorous spells of writing. As
also daydreaming and chilling with gallons of coffee, just an excuse
for creativity.
What next in terms of your writing?
Currently am adapting one of my stories “At Jenny's” into a Hindi
screenplay called “Pati, Patni And In Between”. But the most important
project is my debut novel, which should be out early March-April 2010.
Called Two Worlds, it is a thriller spanning three cities over a
century and a half from Imperial Calcutta to present-day Mumbai and
Wales. It deals with the media politics and vis-à-vis Bollywood and
Mumbai underworld. Spent six years researching and writing… and am
looking forward to a lot of people being shaken out of their
comfortable stupor! I call it my non-fictional fiction.
Has the controversy over the leaked portion of your book affected your
marriage?
No, it didn't affect our marriage but there was a lot of
unpleasantness. Neither of us is used to being in the news for the
wrong reasons. Om's outburst was due to a misunderstanding that his
biography was introduced the wrong way; not through his childhood or
work, but through his relationships.
What hurt me most was people trying to slander me. I have been honest,
but when honesty is given a slur by gossip columnists and tabloid
journalists who try to pose as moral torchbearers, it is both sad as
well as laughable.
Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Sunday, Dec 20, 2009
http://www.hindu.com/mag/2009/12/20/stories/2009122050060200.htm
bademiyansubhanallah
Prof. K. Swaminathan — 1896-1994: Copies can be had from P. R.
Suryanandan, Arunachala Siva, 10, Manakula Vinayagar Street, Sri
Ramana Nagar, Tiruvannamalai-606603.
Ethics and Environment: A. Ranga Reddy;
Rs. 1095.
The Challenges of Self-Managed Development — The ‘Fierce’ Hill Bonda
Case: L. K. Mahapatra, R. P. Mohanty;
Rs. 895.
Entrepreneurial Success in Small and Medium Enterprises: S. Ashok
Kumar;
Rs. 550.
The above books pub. by Mittal Publications, 4594/9, Daryaganj, New
Delhi-110002.
Mao Tse-Tung on War: Natraj Publishers, Publications Division,
Dehradun.
Rs. 395.
Bonding with Kashmir — The Sarhad Story: Sanjay Nahar, Prashant
Talnikar; Chinar Publishers, 11A, Om Gurudatta Housing Society,
Chavanagar, Dhankawadi, Pune-411043.
Rs. 395.
Cambodia, The Land of Hindu Temples: N. P. Venkateswara Choudary;
Papudesi Publications, 20/18, Naidu Buildings, Chittoor-517001.
Rs. 360.
26:11 Operation Mumbai: Translated by Uday Bopshetty; Krish
International, Mhatre Pen Industrial Estate, Near Kohinoor Technical
Institute, Tulsi Pipe Road, Dadar (W), Mumbai.
Rs. 200.
A Leaf in the Stream; Charukesi; The Alliance Co., Old No. 244, New
No. 64, Ramakrishna Mutt Road, PB No. 617, Mylapore, Chennai-600004.
Rs. 150.
The Face You Were Afraid to See — Essays on the Indian Economy: Amit
Bhaduri;
Rs. 250.
Not by Reason Alone — The Politics of Change: N. K. Singh;
Rs. 499.
Memories of Life in Lhasa Under Chinese Rule: Tubten Khetsun;
Rs. 450.
The Confession of Sultana Daku: Sujit Saraf;
Rs. 399.
The above books pub. by Penguin Books India Pvt. Ltd., 11, Community
Centre, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi-110017.
Coconut Water: Sujatha Viswanathan; Stellar Publishers Pvt. Ltd.,
G-25, Vikas Puri, New Delhi-110018.
Rs. 295.
A Guide to Your Pregnancy: Narinder Batta, Sumita Paul;
Rs. 150.
The Discourses of Lord Buddha: Translated from Pali by V. Fausball;
Rs. 250.
The Life of Lord Buddha: Translated from Pali by E. B. Cowell;
Rs. 250.
The above books pub. by Lotus Press, 4263/3, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj,
New Delhi-110002.
Zero Percentile: Neeraj Chhibba;
Rs. 95.
Fifteen Mantras for the Empowered Woman — Lessons to Awaken Nurture
and Inspire You: Abha Sharma Rodrigues;
A Romance with Chaos: Nishant Kaushik;
Rs. 95.
The above books pub. by Rupa & Co., 7/16, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New
Delhi-110002.
Krishna Mandala Bhagavata Religion and Beyond: D. Dennis Hudson;
Oxford University Press, YMCA Library Building, Jai Singh Road, New
Delhi-110001.
Rs. 725.
Transformation in Defence Logistics — Trends and Pointers: J. V.
Singh; KW Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 4676/21, First Floor, Ansari Road,
Daryaganj, New Delhi-110002.
Rs. 780.
Urban Renewal Policy and Response: M. Ramachandran; Academic
Foundation, 4772-73/23, Bharat Ram Road, (23, Ansari Road), Darya
Ganj, New Delhi-110002.
Rs. 595.
Inclusive Growth in Uttar Pradesh — Opportunities & Challenges: Rina
S. Deen;
Rs. 1000.
Dynamics of Land-Caste Relations in India — A Case Study of Bihar:
Rajeev Ranjan Kr Sinha;
Rs. 800.
Quality in Early Childhood Care and Education: A. Shahin Sultana;
Rs. 500.
Globalization and the Third World — Issues, Prospects and Challenges:
Abdulrahim P. Vijapur, Rashmi Doraiswamy;
Rs. 800.
The above books pub. by Manak Publications Pvt. Ltd., B-7, Saraswati
Complex, Subhash Chowk, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi-110092.
Management Guru Bhagwan Sri Ram: Sunil Jogi;
Rs. 95.
Think Big! Becoming Big! — Fulfil Your Dreams: Tarun Engineer;
Rs. 150.
Both the books pub. by Diamond Pocket Books (P) Ltd., X-30, Okhla
Industrial Area, Phase II, New Delhi-110020.
Law and Social Justice: Justice S. Mohan; Vel Publishers, 4/619,
Vandiyur Main Road, Madurai-625020.
Rs. 400.
Macroeconomics and Gender: Ritu Dewan, K. Seeta Prabhu; Zubaan, 128-B,
Shahpur Jat, I Floor, New Delhi-110049.
Rs. 595.
Idelology and Environment Situating the Origin of Vedic Culture:
Ramendra Nath Nandi;
Rs. 495.
Contemporary Ecological Crisis — A Marxist View: Randhir Singh;
Rs. 325.
English Education and the Question of Indian Nationalism: Santosh
Dash;
Rs. 375.
Akbar: The Great Mughul — His New Policy and His New Religion: Ahmad
Bashir;
Rs. 395.
Feminist Frameworks — Building Theory on Violence Against Women: Lisa
S Price;
Rs. 325.
The above books pub. by Aakar Books, 28 E Pocket IV, Mayur Vihar Phase
I, Delhi-110091.
Annya: Nileen Putatunda; Writers Workshop Books, 162/92, Lake Gardens,
Calcutta-700045.
Rs. 100.
http://www.hindu.com/br/2009/12/29/stories/2009122950631200.htm
chhotemianinshallah
M. S. NAGARAJAN
THE THREAD OF GOD IN MY LIFE: R. M. Lala; Penguin/Viking, 11,
Community Centre, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi-110017. Rs. 399.
‘Ah fondest, blindest,
weakest,
I am He whom thou
seekest!
Thou dravest love from
those, who dravest Me’
— Francis Thomson, The
Hound of Heaven
From the renowned jurist and constitutional expert Fali S. Nariman’s
preface to The Thread of God in My Life, we learn that he and Russi
Lala, the author, were classmates, and are lifelong friends. Nariman,
the follower of the ethical religion Zoroastrianism, believes in the
existence of good and evil and god’s revelation in the ‘orderly
harmony of things,’ but not the hand of God in the day-to-day jobs and
tasks, joys and sorrows of individuals. On the other hand, Lala has
full faith in a personal God who takes care of those who willingly
surrender themselves to the will of the divine. This total,
unquestioning submission to the spirit of the Supreme informs every
action of his.
Lala’s memoir is all about God’s presence in man’s life. Quite
naturally, he begins his book with a memorable sentence, “I am not
important, but what has happened to me, and what I have learnt from
eighty years of living, may be.”
Childhood days
In the first part of the book, “Experience,” he explores life through
the prism of his own life. It is full of hazy reflections of sweet
childhood memories. As a cancer survivor, he recalls the traumas of
his life. What is notable in the narration is his ability to weave all
threads into a convincing tapestry of his life. By distancing himself
from the slings and arrows of pain — body and mind — he is able to
explore his emotional life with a high degree of clarity and truth.
This abiding faith in God gave Lala moral strength and fortitude that
enabled him to overcome critical illnesses and save what threatened to
become a wrecked marriage, besides guiding him through changing but
successful careers as a journalist and publisher, and helping him out
of financial hardship and family misfortunes.
Moral strength
In his articles of faith put down in the short section ‘I believe,’
Lala avers, “That so long as He [God] has a plan for me I’ll be on
this earth, and when my work is over He will call me.” The section on
‘Finding a Faith’ takes us along on his own journey to faith:
evolution from an atheist, to an agnostic to a firm believer in God.
This soul-searching journey helped him acquire moral strength. “Faith
flourishes when you accept that God has a plan and you have a part.
Quiet times are the means to find that plan day by day… God comes into
the lives of people in His own time. We cannot push or rush, but need
to be sensitive at the right moment. He does the rest.” From all his
experiments with truth, Lala is convinced that the discipline of
regular inspirational reading and the serenity of prayer are vital
factors in pursuing what he calls the thread of God in our lives. By
way of exposure to the right system of values that ennobled his life,
he recounts his memorable meetings with Vinoba Bhave, Mother Teresa,
J.R.D. Tata, and the Dalai Lama, among others.
The book gives a consistently enlightening account of a firm believer
in God’s help in his everyday life. The book may not — nor is meant to
— convert die-hard sceptics; but it may help in clarifying some doubts
and removing some uncertainties.
Tuesday, Dec 29, 2009
http://www.hindu.com/br/2009/12/29/stories/2009122950661200.htm
chhotemianinshallah
T. SATYAMURTHY
The book unfolds Karashima’s profound knowledge in technical
terminology and the medieval social history of Tamil country
SOUTH INDIAN SOCIETY IN TRANSITION — Ancient to Medieval: Noboru
Karashima; Oxford University Press, YMCA Library Building, Jai Singh
Road, New Delhi-110001. Rs. 750.
This is a collection of 13 essays by Noboru Karashima. They include
research articles — some of them the outcome of research conducted
jointly with scholars like Y. Subbarayulu and P. Shanmugam — already
published in various journals.
These essays, arranged in three sections, deal with many aspects of
medieval south Indian history — such as the nature of landholdings and
production systems; emergence of new social groups and the dynamics
among them; and trade and overseas contacts of Tamil country.
Source
The source of medieval history, particularly of Tamil country, is the
numerous inscriptions found on the walls of the temples or engraved on
copper plates, essentially recording the details of land transactions.
The terms occurring in them have been variously interpreted, with some
of the researchers using them to try and build models of the
organisation of the state. K. A. Nilakanta Sastri proposed a well-
built centralised state, strongly based on competent and organised
bureaucracy. This was strongly refuted by scholars like Stein, who
proposed a segmentary state based on strong peasant involvement.
Karashima takes a slightly different view and seeks to understand the
society and the state from the landholding patterns.
The first section, which has four articles, provides fresh
interpretations to terms such as kudininga and kudinikki devadana. He
proposes a mechanism by which the state, the temple, the tenant (kudi)
and the cultivator shared the produce.
In the article on Kaniyalar (Kani, hereditary right of possession), he
argues that the nature of landholding underwent changes when many
private landholders began to appear. He could easily establish the
emergence of individual landholders, as differentiated from
cultivators, especially in the fertile areas during the mid-Chola
period.
With equal ease, he traces how, in a silent revolution, people in the
lower strata of society — such as hill tribes, artisans, and merchants
— acquired power during that period. Interestingly, he says the term,
kil (widely taken to mean a micro-scale to measure the land during the
Chola period) is a standardised land measure rather than a term
denoting the denominator in a fraction.
The next section deals with the emergence of new social groups and
factions such as chittirameli, periyanadu, and ainurruvar, which were
construed to be the assemblies of lower jatis.
Their emergence particularly in the 12th and the 13th centuries
clearly indicate that the centralised Chola government was fast losing
its control. Similarly, the increased incidence of padikaval tax, a
kind of payment for protection of land by many regional heads, is also
due to the weakening of the central government.
Growth of overseas trade
Another significant development in this period is the growth of
overseas trade. The section dealing with this adds value to the book,
as it has detailed references to the Chola kingdom in the Chinese
annals. The study of Chinese porcelain could have been more specific,
as this kind of object never received due attention from the
excavators for want of information.
In fine, the book unfolds Karashima’s profound knowledge in technical
terminology and the medieval social history of Tamil country, based on
Indian and overseas Tamil epigraphy.
His methodology of documentation and interpretation of lithic records
stands as a model for young oriental researchers. While his postulates
have already been the subject of discussion within the academic
community, inviting endorsements and rebuttals in an equal measure,
this publication should serve as a good source of material for
students of history, especially medieval south Indian history.
Tuesday, Dec 29, 2009
http://www.hindu.com/br/2009/12/29/stories/2009122950711300.htm
chhotemianinshallah
- Arun Shourie -
Now, it so happens that I profoundly disagree with Mr. Jaswant Singh’s
Assessment of Jinnah. Ever since I read the multi-volume Jinnah Papers
brought out by the National Archives of Pakistan; the two-volume,
Foundations of Pakistan, edited by Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada; and the
four-volume History of Partition of India, edited by the Pakistani
historian, K.K. Aziz, Jinnah has seemed to me a pinched, narrow-
minded, diabolic schemer – one who used and was used by the British to
divide India.
To use his words, he “forged a pistol,” the armed thugs shoring up the
Muslim League. He unleashed them in his “Direct Action” against
Hindus. He paralysed the Interim Government through Liaquat Ali. From
1937 onwards, he worked stealthily, and continuously with the British
to thwart every scheme that might have preserved a united India. His
contemptuous characterizations of India, of Hindus, of our national
movement and its leaders make one’s blood boil to this day. That he
talked Islam and drank whiskey, ate ham, and the rest, that he hardly
knew the Quran to say nothing of living by it, do not prove his
secularism to me, they make him out to be a hypocrite. In a word, far
from being “attracted” by Jinnah, as my senior, Jaswant Singh is, I am
repelled by him.
And book after book that I have read regarding those decades since I
wrote about him and his stratagems twenty-five years ago has etched
that image even deeper. My perspective differs for another reason also
from the one that informs Jaswant Singh’s book, and that, if I may
add, of those who still dream of a “grand confederation of India,
Pakistan, Bangladesh,” of those who still talk of Akhand Bharat.
Having waded through the writings of Islamic leaders and clerics of
the period, and seeing the direction in which Pakistan and Bangladesh
have evolved – have inevitably evolved, given the principles on which
they were founded, principles that Jinnah articulated and insisted
upon incessantly – I have come to realise that Girilal Jain was the
one who was right. You are dead wrong, he told me, after reading what
I had written about Jinnah. The best thing that has happened for us is
the Partition. It has given us breathing time, a little time to
resurrect and save our pluralist culture and religions. Had it not
happened, we would have been bullied and thrashed and swamped by
Islamic fundamentalists. So, my lament is the opposite of Jaswant
Singh’s today. And it also so happens that I am an adorer of Sardar
Patel as of the Lokmanya, and a worshipper of Gandhiji.
But first the book, and a few extracts.
A glimpse of the contents
A chapter, “Compromise on national symbols” – not by the British nor
by Jinnah, but by the Congress leaders. By “Congress leaders” does the
author mean, “Sardar Patel,” or even “Congress leaders, in particular
Sardar Patel”?
A chapter, “Boost to Jinnah by Congress.”
A sub-heading: “Azad shocks Gandhi” – when Maulana Azad, then Congress
President, conveyed acceptance of the Cabinet Mission Plan, in
particular of excluding non-League Muslims from the Cabinet, and his
assurance to the British that he would carry the Congress with him,
that they need not worry about any misgivings that some, including
Gandhiji might have. All this without telling either the Congress or
Gandhiji, and he “mis-stated” the facts, to boot, to Gandhiji’s face,
till he was confronted with the letter he had sent. The author sets
out the “devastating effect” of the episode on Gandhiji.
Citations from Sardar Patel
He recalls how the Congress Working Committee, in spite of the
strenuous, indeed broken-hearted opposition of Gandhiji, accepted the
British proposal to divide Punjab and Bengal. He quotes the letter
that Sardar Patel wrote to a member of the Working Committee, and
points out how very unrealistic the Sardar was in this case:
“If the League insists on Pakistan,” the Sardar wrote, “the only
alternative is the division of the Punjab and Bengal… I do not think
that the British Government will agree to division. In the end, they
will see the wisdom of handing over the reins of Government to the
strongest party. Even if they do not, it will not matter. A strong
Centre with the whole of India – except East Bengal and part of the
Punjab, Sind and Baluchistan – enjoying full autonomy under the Centre
will be so powerful that the remaining portions will eventually come
in.” The author remarks,
“Both Nehru and Patel surmised that by this counter-strategy Jinnah
would be paid in his own coin; he would be made to realise that his
argument would be turned against him; that what would be left to him
ultimately was the ‘truncated, mutilated, moth-eaten Pakistan’ which
he had scornfully refused to look at some years ago.”
Recounting subsequent events, the book records, “Patel was so fed up
with the League’s tactics inside the Interim Government that he saw
nothing but endless intrigue and troubles ahead in any kind of working
with the League; it was better to have a clean separation rather than
have pinpricks every day. Nehru too had lost all hopes of joint action
with the Muslim League in any kind of arrangement; the League would
never see eye to eye with the Congress on any of the issues. He felt,
despairingly, that there was no way out except Partition. Rajendra
Prasad came out with the same explanation: ‘It was the Working
Committee, and particularly such of its members as were represented on
the Central Cabinet, which had agreed to the scheme of Partition…
(They) did so because they had become disgusted with the situation
then obtaining in the country. They saw that riots had become a thing
of everyday occurrence and would continue to be so; and that the
Government… was incapable of preventing them because the Muslim League
Ministers would cause obstruction everywhere… It had thus become
impossible to carry on the administration.’
“With Nehru and Patel finally acquiescing to the demand for Pakistan,
the atmosphere, especially in the north, began to hot up as never
before…,” the book records, and elaborates what followed.
“Benumbed mental state of Congress”
The book turns to what it calls “Benumbed Mental State of Congress”,
and cites Acharya Kripalani’s admission to nail it. Kripalani, then
the President of the Congress, wrote about the crucial meeting in
which, unknown to Gandhiji, the Working Committee met, and endorsed
the Partition Plan: “The Working Committee met in a tense atmosphere.
Everybody felt depressed at the prospect of the Partition of the
country. The Viceroy’s proposals were accepted without much
discussion. As a matter of fact, Jawaharlal and Vallabhbhai were
already committed to the acceptance of the proposals. There was no
critical examination…” Kripalani noted the manifest infirmities in the
Plan that had been drawn up, and which the CWC approved, and wrote,
“It was quite natural for our foreign masters to ignore all these
inconsistencies in order to favour the League; one cannot understand
why we of the Working Committee did not even draw their attention to
these important details.”
The Plan had been accepted behind Gandhiji’s back. He was dead set
against it even after Panditji and Patel told him that they had
already agreed to it in their meeting with the Viceroy, and had
already got the Working Committee to endorse it. Gandhiji was torn –
telling his closest associates one moment that he would put up a last
fight, telling them the next that he was helpless. At the crucial
moment, he told Congressmen that, as their leaders had already
accepted the Partition Plan, they should do so also. The book quotes
Panditji sort of placing the responsibility on this falling in line by
Gandhiji! Panditji told Leonard Mosley, “But, if Gandhiji had told us
not to accept Partition, we would have gone on fighting and waiting.”
The book records that, given the extent to which it had been weakened
by the Second War, the British had come to realise that their time was
up, that there was no way they could impose their conditions on the
Indians. So, they set about their fallback option – to divide India so
that they would have a strategic foothold in Pakistan. Having
documented the mirages and miasmas of the Congress leaders, the book
remarks, “the Pakistan demand assumed prestige mainly because of the
Congress vacillation on that issue and pampering of the League…”
The book shows how the rationalization the Congress leaders advanced –
that the only alternative to Partition was civil war – is blown by the
massacres that followed. It recalls Panditji telling a New York
audience two years later, that if they had known the terrible
consequences of Partition in the shape of killings etc., they would
have resisted the division of India. It recalls, Rajendra Prasad
exclaiming, “If only we had known!” “As for Acharya Kripalani,” the
book records, “his choicest epithets in later years were reserved for
those in the Congress High Command on whom he put the entire
responsibility for Partition – so far had his own mind traveled from
the position he had taken (of defending the June 3rd Plan) in that
fateful session of the AICC meeting in June 1947.”
The book records Pyarelal’s telling assessment: “Pandit Nehru’s speech
revealed – what had all along been suspected – that it was the Interim
Government’s helplessness, owing to sabotage from within by the League
members in the Government and retention of control by the British, to
cope with the spreading anarchy that had driven the Congress High
Command to desperation, so that they were glad to escape from the
intolerable situation they found themselves in, even by paying the
price of Partition. The Congress leaders were past the prime of their
lives. After a quarter of a century of wandering in the wilderness
they had come within sight of the Promised Land. They were doughty
warriors and were not afraid, if necessary, to take the plunge once
more. But they were afraid that it might not be given them to see
another successful fight through, and the fruit of their struggle and
the countless sacrifices of a whole generation of fighters for freedom
might slip through their fingers when it seemed almost within their
grasp. If the hour of decision had come earlier when the Congress was
in the wilderness, when they were young and before their experience in
the Interim Government and the exercise of power had coloured their
thinking and outlook, their choice might have been different.”
But that was not just Pyarelal’s assessment. Panditji’s own assessment
was harsher. The book records what he told Leonard Mosley in 1960:
“The truth is that we were tired men, and we were getting on in years
too. Few of us could stand the prospect of going to prison again, and
if we had stood out for a United India as we wished it, prison
obviously awaited us. We saw the fires burning in the Punjab and heard
every day of the killings. The plan for Partition offered a way out,
and we took it.”
A few questions
I can go on reproducing extracts, but the main theme of the book’s
thesis will be evident. According to the book, while the British had
the manifest design to partition India; while Jinnah and his Muslim
League subordinates were manifestly working for Pakistan, neither of
the two would have succeeded but for the vacillations, mistakes and
compromises of the Congress leaders.
To assess the anger that the Gujarat Government has worked up, ask
three questions:
• Is it just this book alone that asserts that mistakes by Congress
leaders contributed to the outcome? Was that fact not acknowledged by
the Congress leaders themselves?
• When the book speaks of the vacillations, mistakes and compromises
of the Congress leaders does it mean, “the vacillations, mistakes and
compromises of the Congress leaders – excluding Sardar Patel”?
Manifestly not. So, is the author guilty of insulting Sardar Patel or
not? Should the Gujarat Government not, therefore, ban the book? And
so, the final question:
• Whose book are we talking about?
The book is The Tragedy of Partition by one of the longest-serving and
most revered pillars of the RSS, H.V. Seshadri. It is the standard
text of the RSS on the Partition. It is sold at every RSS bookshop,
and read, its message is internalised, by every RSS swayam sevak.
Now that the Gujarat Government knows the name of the author, two
further questions:
• Is there one passage in Jaswant Singh’s book, even one passage that
casts the Sardar’s role into graver doubt than Seshadri’s book?
• Is the Sardar’s reputation, in the view of those prancing about to
shield it, so fragile that such references as there are in Jaswant
Singh’s book or Seshadri’s will undermine it?
Nor is Seshadri’s book alone in documenting the lapses of the Congress
leaders. Professor R.C. Majumdar nailed the lapses extensively in
lectures that the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan published. He nailed them in
his three-volume study, History of the Freedom Movement in India. The
lapses are nailed even more firmly in Struggle for Freedom, which
forms Volume XI of the great series, The History and Culture of the
People of India, “prepared under the direction of,” as the cover of
each volume says, that other distinguished son of Gujarat, K.M. Munshi
– one of the closest associates of the Sardar himself. And they are
nailed – not as lapses, but as inexcusable blunders – in the work on
the Partition of India of the greatest constitutional scholar we have
had since Independence, H.M. Seervai. The self-serving speeches of the
Congress leaders are available in Mitra’s Annual Register. The anguish
of Gandhiji, his torment at what Congress leaders, in particular the
two closest to him, Panditji and the Sardar, had done is recorded from
day to day in his addresses at the daily prayer meetings and in
Pyarelal’s searing volumes, The Last Phase – “The purity of my
striving will be put to the test only now,” Pyarelal records him
saying as he lay in bed, having awakened earlier than he was meant to.
“Today I find myself all alone. Even the Sardar and Jawaharlal think
that my reading of the situation is wrong and peace is sure to return
if Partition is agreed upon… They wonder if I have not deteriorated
with age… Nevertheless, I must speak as I feel if I am a true and
loyal friend to the Congress and to the British people as I claim to
be…”
As all these books, as well as many more, can be stretched to cast the
same doubts on the role of the Sardar, as one of the principal leaders
of the Congress, how many of them will the Gujarat Government ban? (To
be continued)
The ban and the law
“The book denigrates the Sardar,” said a spokesman of the Gujarat
Government on the first day, giving the reason for banning Jaswant
Singh’s book, “and that is not acceptable to the state.”
No one could point to a single, not one single reference in the book
that could be taken to denigrate Sardar Patel. Someone must also have
realised that not being “acceptable” to a state is not a ground on
which a book can be banned under our Constitution and laws.
Nonetheless the ban was notified – even as the senior-most officials
of the state Government were testifying that they did not know the
reasons for the ban. The Indian Express of 23 August 2009 reported a
senior official of the state’s Home Department as saying, “The Legal
Department must have gone through the book. I have not read it.” “When
contacted, state Law Secretary MH Shah also expressed ignorance about
the reason for the ban,” the paper reported. But a ban nonetheless –
The moving finger having writ…
But, lo and behold! In the notification banning the book, there is no
reference to the Sardar at all! The notification declares, “the
contents of the book are highly objectionable and against the national
interest,… the contents of the book are misleading to the public and
are against the tranquility of the public and against the interests of
the state” – hence the book is to be forfeited and its publication,
display, sale and distribution “and any kind of its use” are
prohibited.
The 669-page book was released in Delhi late in the evening on 17
August. The ban was announced on the 18th by sojourners in Shimla. The
notification by an Undersecretary in Gandhinagar is dated 19 August.
Talk of speed-reading!
The grounds as stated
Apart from the fact that the ban was manifestly announced before the
book was read, the question that arises is: Does a government in India
have the right to ban a book because it finds its contents
• “highly objectionable” – obviously in the present case in regard to
facts, for no one is alleging that the contents are pornographic;
• “against the national interest”;
• “misleading to the public”;
• “against the tranquility of the public”; and
• “against the interests of the state.”
And can a government ban a book on these grounds without giving any
particulars at all?
Most of the grounds that have been listed are so ridiculous that, even
a moment’s consideration will show them up. The Government of Gujarat
thinks that the contents are “misleading to the public”? Were that to
be a valid ground, the Government of Gujarat would have had license to
ban almost all newspapers since the post-Godhra riots as it has been
deeply convinced that their contents have been grossly “misleading to
the public.”
“Against the interests of the state”? Consider a report that calls
into question the claims on which a state government has attracted
foreign investors. Were it to be circulated, investors would pack up
and leave. The report, howsoever well researched, would be “against
the interests of the state”, would it not? Hence, ban and prohibit and
forfeit!
“Against the national interest”? The lie to this is given by the fact
that Chief Ministers of other states that are under the BJP itself
have stated categorically that they are not going to ban the book. Are
they oblivious of “the national interest”?
“Tranquility of the state”? Now, that is a catchphrase: agitations and
skirmishes can always be, and ever so often are whipped up, especially
if a state government backs them or looks the other way – recall, the
shameful destruction of the Bhandarkar Institute’s priceless
manuscripts over Laine’s book; recall the frenzy that was whipped up
in two coastal districts of Karnataka by completely distorting a few
words in a textbook for little children, a textbook that had been in
use for forty years, a textbook that had been authored by one of the
greatest littérateurs of our country, Shivarama Karanth. How very
contrived such furies were. But we can go beyond instances of this
kind: as judgement after judgement of our courts deals with this
assertion of governments, we should turn to them.
The law
The notification banning Jaswant Singh’s book does so under Sections
153A of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 95 of the Cr.P.C. Hence,
let us start with a judgement dealing with a ban under these very
sections – and one concerning an extreme case.
Gopal Vinayak Godse, the brother of Nathuram Godse, the assassin of
Mahatma Gandhi, wrote a book. The theme of the book was that Gandhiji
had been assassinated for his policy of appeasing the Muslims, which
in turn had led to the Partition of India. The Delhi Administration
passed an order banning and forfeiting the book. The case came before
the Bombay High Court. The judgement of the Court shows that it had no
doubt at all about the import of the book: citing the book’s arguments
and narrative, the Court noted that through these, the assassination
had not just been explained, it had in a sense been “extolled”. Yet,
the Court held in favour of Godse’s brother and, not only held the
forfeiture to have been wholly unjustified, it decreed that the
Administration shall pay the costs of litigation to Godse.
The Court went to great pains to examine the passages in Godse’s book
which the Administration had asserted were objectionable. In instance
after instance we find the Court examining the veracity of the passage
and concluding that other accounts, for instance those of Pyarelal, of
Maulana Azad etc., showed that the author had sufficient grounds for
saying what he had said; and this was one of the main reasons on
account of which it struck down the order of forfeiture. These
passages include Godse’s assertion to the effect that Pakistan had
been given cash balances at Mahatma Gandhi’s instance, that men and
women had been moved by Nathuram Godse’s deed, that they had offered
great and spontaneous support to him and his relatives after the
assassination, that Sardar Patel had opposed Gandhiji on the payment
of cash balances and so on.
Again and again the Court points out that the book must be read as a
whole and that its purpose must always be kept in mind. Again and
again it holds that the book in question deals with the policies which
led to the Partition of India and that it does not deal with any
current communal issue. It holds that to ascertain the purpose for
which the book is written, apart from the contents of the book itself,
things that are said in the preface etc. should be examined.
In fact, the Court holds that even if in a particular case the facts
turn out to be at variance with the assertions in the book, one cannot
deduce automatically that the intention of the author is to create
enmity and hatred, the offences which fall under Sections 153A and B.
As the Court puts it:
“Pyarelal’s book bears out the petitioner in a large measure and in
any event no charge can be made against him that in regard to the
events surrounding the fact history has been distorted by him. It is
also necessary to remember that if the claim of an author that he is
an historian is not fully borne out, one cannot infer from that alone
that the author had an oblique intention in straying from the strict
path of history. Much less can one infer that such an oblique
intention was of the nature mentioned in Section 153A of the Indian
Penal Code.”
It repeatedly dismisses the pleas of the prosecution regarding several
passages by affirming that sentences and passages cannot be torn out
of context to make a fanciful charge stick. As the Court puts it: “A
passage here or a passage there, a sentence here or a sentence there,
a word similarly, may, if strained and torn out of context, supply
inflammatory matter to a willing mind. But such a process is
impermissible. We must read the book as a whole, we must not ignore
the context of a passage and we must try and see what, reasonably,
would be the reaction of the common reader…”
It places emphasis on that last point: namely, the passages must be
assessed in the light of what a common reader can reasonably be
expected to do upon reading the passages. Obtuse and strange
constructions are not to be the guide in these matters, nor the
reaction of hyper-sensitive minds. Furthermore, it holds that in
judging the likely consequences of the book, we must go by the depth
of contents, the language, and the class of readers who are liable to
read it: while noting that Godse’s language is powerful, that he has
written the book with a definite purpose, the Court holds that the
language is so Sanskritised that the ordinary reader will not be able
to find the incendiary material in it which the Government is claiming
marks the whole book.
But even if stray incendiary material be found upon searching for it,
says the Court, that is no ground for forfeiting the book under
Section 153A: “There is no doubt that Gandhiji’s murder has been
extolled and one cannot possibly appreciate it. But the question
before us is not whether the book is bad for that reason. Our task is
to see whether the glorification of Nathuram or the justification of
his dastardly act can be said to be reasonably connected with the
problem of Hindu-Muslim amity…”
Even in such an extreme case, the order banning the book was struck
down. Indeed, as I noted, the Government was directed to pay the
author the cost of litigation. And the point transcends the specific
book at issue in such cases: whether the ban was reimposed and upheld
later in regard to a specific publication, the criteria that were set
out in the Godse case are the ones that have been reaffirmed in
judgment after judgment.
Alternative history
Another well-known case, M/s Varsha Publication Pvt. Ltd. vs State of
Maharashtra, provides an even more exact. What the Court said in this
case has a direct bearing on a book such as that of Jaswant Singh, a
book that advances a thesis that is at variance with much of what we
have been brought up to believe. The Court held,
“We have already observed that the very purpose of writing the article
is a sort of historical research and it is based on a number of
reference books and other material. It is true that sometimes in a
given case even a truthful account may come within the mischief of S.
153A. But this will be too broad a proposition. Different
considerations will prevail when we are to consider a scholarly
article on history and religion based upon research with the help of a
number of reference books. It will be very difficult for the State to
contend that a narration of history would promote violence, enmity or
hatred. If such a convention is accepted, a day will come when that
part of history which is unpalatable to a particular religion will
have to be kept in cold storage on the pretext that the publication of
such history would constitute an offence punishable under S. 153A of
the IPC. We do not think that the scope of S. 153A can be enlarged to
such an extent with a view to thwart history.
For obvious reasons, history and historical events cannot be allowed
to be looked upon as a secret on a specious plea that if the history
is made known to a person who is interested to know the history, there
is likelihood of someone else being hurt. Similarly, an article
containing a historical research cannot be allowed to be thwarted on
such a plea that the publication of such a material would be hit by S.
153A. Otherwise, the position will be very precarious. A nation will
have to forget its own history and in due course the nation will have
no history at all.”
Transpose these observations to Jaswant Singh’s book – the endnotes of
which alone, listing sources and explanations for each observation and
event, traverse sixty-seven pages. The Court continued,
“This result cannot be said to have been intended by the Legislature
when S. 153A of the IPC and S. 95 of the Cr. P.C. were enacted
[exactly the two sections invoked in the Gujarat Government’s
notification!]. If anybody intends to extinguish the history (by
prohibiting its publication) of the nation on the pretext of taking
action under the above Section his act will have to be treated as a
mala fide one.”
Ban order cannot be vague
We saw, how the Gujarat Government order just makes some general
assertions – “against the interests of the state,” “against national
interest.” It gives no specific evidence at all. The Supreme Court has
held this to be impermissible.
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Gajanan Visheshwar Birjur vs Union of
India deals with an instance that our activists will find particularly
interesting, even as it nails the Gujarat notification. A distributor
of Marxist literature imported some books of Mao. The Customs
confiscated them, and banned their distribution, etc. The Supreme
Court came down heavily on the Customs and its notification. It
observed,
“It would be seen immediately that the confiscation orders are totally
bald and devoid of any findings in terms of Notification No. 77. The
order does not say which of the books fall within the mischief of
which clause of the notification. It is not as if the notification
proscribes these books by name, i.e., by title. It only says that
import of books containing matter of the nature mentioned therein is
prohibited. The books imported are writings, speeches and works of
Mao, besides the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin. If they were
proposed to be confiscated, it was obligatory upon the authority to
say which book contained words of the nature mentioned in the
notification.”
How does the Gujarat Government’s notification banning Jaswant Singh’s
book stand against this requirement?
In Jaswant Singh’s case the notification banning the book has come
without any inquiry, to say nothing of even the semblance of a show
cause notice. In the case we are considering, a show cause had been
issued. The Court came down on it for the same reason – it had nothing
specific in it. The Supreme Court held,
the show-cause notices themselves are bald and drawn up in a casual
manner. It must be remembered that the order of confiscation affects
not only the fundamental right of the petitioner to carry on his
occupation and business but also his fundamental right of freedom of
speech and expression (including his freedom to propagate the thoughts
and ideas which he thinks are in the best interest of this nation). In
such a case, it was required of the officer to point out which book
contains words, signs or visible representations which are likely to
incite or encourage any person to resort to violence or sabotage for
the purpose of overthrowing or undermining the Government established
by law in India or in any State thereof or its authority in any area
or that they attract any of the other clauses in Notification No. 77.
Absence of such specification both in the show-cause notices and the
final orders must be held to vitiate the action taken.”
And when, far from the show cause notice not recording any
particulars, the notice itself has not been issued at all?
Nor was that all. What the Supreme Court went on to say has an even
more direct bearing on what the Gujarat Government has done. It held,
“Before parting with this case, we must express our unhappiness with
attempts at thought control in a democratic society like ours. Human
history is witness to the fact that all evolution and all progress is
because of power of thought and that every attempt at thought control
is doomed to failure. An idea can never be killed. Suppression can
never be a successful permanent policy. Any surface serenity it
creates is a false one. It will erupt one day. Our Constitution
permits a free trade, if we can use the expression, in ideas and
ideologies. It guarantees freedom of thought and expression — the only
limitation being a law in terms of clause (2) of Article 19 of the
Constitution. Thought control is alien to our constitutional scheme…”
Need we site more?
Public order
“But what about the apprehension of the government that disorders may
break out because some people are offended by the book, whatever the
intentions of the author might have been?” This is what the Gujarat
Government has tried to insinuate with its assertion that the book is
“against the tranquility of the public.”
The complete answer to this has been given in several judgments by
High Courts and by the Supreme Court. To begin with, the Supreme Court
has held time and again that the test has to be not the mere inference
that a publication is liable to cause ill will, hatred or enmity in
some persons. The test has to be that the ill will, hatred and enmity
that the publication is liable to cause will be such as to threaten
public order. Furthermore, the courts have repeatedly held that public
order cannot be deemed to be jeopardized merely because it is liable
to cause some breach of peace, or because a law and order problem is
liable to arise. As the Supreme Court put it in the well-known case
Ram Manohar vs. State of Bihar, and scores and scores of other
judgments, the public order which is sought to be safeguarded entails
“the prevention of disorder of a grave nature.”
Almost a textbook case that refutes the Gujarat Government’s assertion
occurs in the Supreme Court’s judgment, S. Rangarajan vs P. Jagjivan
Ram. A film was produced, Ore Oru Garmathile. It was cleared by the
Censor Board. Looking for an issue, some commenced agitations,
charging that the film was against reservations. They threatened to
burn down theatres that exhibited it. Citing the threat of violence
and disorder, the Government of Tamil Nadu banned it. The Madras High
Court upheld the ban. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment in
ringing terms.
The Court declared, “It is our firm belief, nay, a conviction which
constitutes one of the basic values of a free society to which we are
wedded under our Constitution that there must be freedom not only for
the thought that we cherish, but also for the thought that we hate.”
And this is not to be an abstract commitment. The Court held that the
danger which is alleged to be liable to follow the dissemination of an
idea must not be remote, conjectural or far-fetched; it must be
proximate and it must have a direct nexus with what is being said or
exhibited. To warrant restriction by the State, “The expression of
thought should be intrinsically dangerous to the public interests. In
other words, the expression should be inseparably locked up with the
action contemplated like the equivalent of a ‘spark in a powder
keg.’”
Second, while the Tamil Nadu Government and others had been pleading
that the exhibition of the film would create very serious law and
order problems in the state, while they had been citing the threats
held out by several groups and their warnings that they would proceed
to damage theatres screening the film, the Court observed: “We are
amused yet troubled by the stand taken by the state Government with
regard to the film which has received the National Award. We want to
put the anguished question, what good is the protection of freedom of
expression if the state does not take care to protect it? If the film
is unobjectionable and cannot constitutionally be restricted under
Article 19(2), freedom of expression cannot be suppressed on account
of threat of demonstrations and processions or threats of violence.
That would tantamount to negation of the rule of law and a surrender
to blackmail and intimidation. It is the duty of the State to protect
the freedom of expression since it is a liberty guaranteed against the
State. The State cannot plead the inability to handle the hostile
audience problem. It is its obligatory duty to prevent it and protect
the freedom of expression.”
The Court concluded its judgment with words which apply in particular
to the sort of circumstances which we are considering. It said:
“Freedom of expression which is legitimate and constitutionally
protected, cannot be held to ransom by an intolerant group of people.
The fundamental freedom under Article 19(1)(a) can be reasonably
restricted only for the purposes mentioned in Article 19(2) and the
restriction must be justified on the anvil of necessity and not the
quicksand of convenience or expediency. Open criticism of government
policies and operations is not a ground for restricting expression. We
must practice tolerance to the views of others. Intolerance is as much
dangerous to democracy as to the person himself.”
That is the law. That is the mandate of the Constitution. How does the
ban by the Gujarat Government look in their light?
Master strategies
The Red Queen strategy
“The Queen turned crimson with fury, and, after glaring at her for a
moment like a wild beast, began screaming, ‘Off with her head! Off
with her…,’” she bellowed when Alice couldn’t say who the gardeners
she didn’t know, were.
“Off with their heads,” said the Red Queen as she saw the gardeners
hastily painting the roses.
“…in a very short time,” into the croquet game, “the Queen was in a
furious passion, and went stamping about, and shouting, ‘Off with his
head!’ or ‘Off with her head!’ about once a minute…”
“Alice began to feel very uneasy: to be sure, she had not as yet had
any dispute with the Queen, but she knew that it might happen any
minute, ‘and then,’ thought she, ‘what would become of me?’ They’re
dreadfully fond of beheading people here: the great wonder is, that
there’s anyone left alive!’”
You see, as we know from Through the Looking Glass, “The Queen had
only one way of settling all difficulties, great or small: ‘Off with
his head!’ she said, without even looking round…”
That is the way to mete out justice. But in doing so, you must
strictly follow the Red Queen in procedure too:
• The sentence must be executed before it is pronounced.
• The sentence must be pronounced before the verdict is settled.
• The verdict must be settled before the arguments are commenced.
• The arguments must be concluded before the evidence is examined.
• The evidence must be examined before it is collected.
And so, “Off with his head!”
The Cheshire Cat strategy
But what when they all lose because of you, and they bay for your
head?
“But how have we lost?” you must demand – and this what transpired
literally. “We had 136. We expected to gain an additional 30. That
would have made us 166. All that has happened is that, instead of
gaining 30, we have come short by 30. We are 116. Our projections
turned out correct. Just the sign played mischief. Where is the
question of defeat?”
In fact, “Kul mila ke, the result places us in a position that is even
better than in 2004. Then, we were just one of the Opposition parties
– the Communists, the SP… They have all been wiped out. The entire
Opposition space is now ours… And this is the fulfillment of our
vision. Thirty years ago, we had set out to end the monopoly of the
Congress. With the victory of the Congress, with our not winning, and
the defeat of the rest, we have succeeded in creating a bi-polar
polity. Where is the question of defeatism?”
So, there shall be no inquiry into so-called reasons of so-called
defeat.
Next, in fact I have already constituted a committee to inquire into
the reasons for defeat. But the names are being kept secret.
Next, I have already sent selected persons to seek views of our state
units as to the reasons for defeat. And our respected colleague… will
collate their observations in a report.
Next, no, he shall not collate their observations. He shall prepare a
report on the basis of their observations.
Next, no, he shall not prepare a report on the basis of those
observations for they are about the past. He shall prepare a report on
“The Way Ahead.”
Next, no, he shall not prepare any report on any “Way Ahead.” He shall
prepare a paper listing suggestions that have emerged for “The Way
Ahead.”
Next, no, he shall not write the suggestions down at all. To start the
discussion, he shall mention a few points – briefly – about “The Way
Ahead.”
Hence, no report was tabled. Firstly, there was no report. Secondly,
there was no table. What the media are reporting is an imaginary
document.
… ‘How do you like the Queen?’ said the Cat in a low voice.
‘Not at all,’ said Alice: ‘she’s so extremely…’ – just then she
noticed that the Queen was close behind her, listening – so she went
on, ‘…likely to win, that it’s hardly worth while finishing the game.’
The Queen smiled and passed on.
‘Who are you talking to?’ said the King, going up to Alice, and
looking at the Cat’s head with great curiosity.
‘It’s a friend of mine – a Cheshire Cat,’ said Alice: ‘allow me to
introduce it.’ [As you remember, this cat was exactly like the report:
she could have her head appear, as it did now, without the rest of her
body.]
‘I don’t like the look of it at all,’ said the King, ‘however, it may
kiss my hand if it likes.’
‘I’d rather not,’ the Cat remarked.
‘Don’t be impertinent,’ said the King, ‘and don’t look at me like
that!’ He got behind Alice as he spoke.
‘A cat may look at a king,’ said Alice. ‘I’ve read that in some book,
but I don’t remember where.’
‘Well, it must be removed,’ said the King very decidedly, and he
called the Queen, who was passing at the moment, ‘My dear! I wish you
would have this cat removed!’
‘I’ll fetch the executioner myself,’ said the King eagerly, and he
hurried off.
Alice thought she might as well go back, and see how the game was
going on, as she heard the Queen’s voice in the distance, screaming
with passion…
When she got back to the Cheshire Cat, she was surprised to find quite
a large crowd collected round it: there was a dispute going on between
the executioner, the King, and the Queen, who were all talking at
once, while all the rest were quite silent, and looked very
uncomfortable.
The moment Alice appeared, she was appealed to by all three to settle
the question, and they repeated their arguments to her, though, as
they all spoke at once, she found it very hard indeed to make out
exactly what they said.
The executioner’s argument was, that you couldn’t cut off a head
unless there was a body to cut it off from: that he had never had to
do such a thing before, and he wasn’t going to begin at his time of
life.
The King’s argument was, that anything that had a head could be
beheaded, and that you weren’t to talk nonsense.
The Queen’s argument was, that if something wasn’t done about it in
less than no time she’d have everybody executed, all round. (It was
this last remark that had made the whole party look so grave and
anxious)…
But what are you to do when the Queen turns on you?
The legal eagle strategy
“But after quoting Jinnah’s singular – ‘We are going to be a secular
State’ – speech, did you not say, ‘I believe that this is the ideal
that India, Pakistan as well as Bangladesh… should follow’?” the
cussed demand. “Did you not yourself write, ‘There are many people who
leave an inerasable mark on history. But there are a few who actually
create history. Qaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah was one such rare
individual… My respectful homage to that great man.’ How then are you
less liable than the one you have executed?”
When faced with such cussedness, field the resident lawyer.
“My Lords, when my client said ‘India’, he did not mean India as we
know it. But Akhand Bharat. Now, as my Lords know, Akhand Bharat
includes Pakistan. And my Lords, in that expression, ‘includes
Pakistan’, the word ‘includes’ is manifestly and intentionally
redundant. Hence, my Lords, when my client said ‘India’, he meant
‘includes Pakistan’, and when he said ‘includes Pakistan’ he meant
Pakistan. What he said therefore reads, ‘The Qaid-e-Azam’s formulation
is an ideal for Pakistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh.”
“But what about paying ‘homage’? Did he not say, ‘My respectful homage
to this great man’? Has the noted inquisitor, Karan Thapar, not
pointed out that according to the Oxford Dictionary, ‘homage’ means
‘acknowledgement of superiority, dutiful reverence.’ Where has the
condemned man expressed anything equivalent to ‘dutiful reverence’?”
“That is the problem, my Lords, these people read too much, and too
literally. And the cleverness is right there, in that very word,
‘homage’. You see, this assaulter himself has quoted the meaning of
‘homage’ as ‘acknowledgement of superiority’. In paying ‘homage’ my
client was not acknowledging the Qaid-e-Azam’s superiority, but his
own. Moreover, my Lords, these words were written for purely tactical
reasons. They were written to disorient the Pakistanis so that we may
vanquish them that much more easily.”
But how can words be twisted like this? How can “India” mean
“Pakistan”? How can acknowledging the superiority of the other become
affirming one’s own superiority?
Aren’t there 364 unbirthdays in a year, and only one birthday? Humpty
Dumpty demands. So, you have 364 days for unbirthday presents in a
year,
“And only one for birthday presents, you know. There’s glory for you!”
“I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory’,” Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t – till I
tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’”
“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,’” Alice
objected.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone,
“it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so
many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – that’s
all.”
But will the lawyer go so far as to advance such arguments for a
client? Will he not worry that doing so may affect his credibility?
When he does so for the Ketan Parekhs day in and day out, and that,
far from diminishing his credibility, is what leads people to call him
“one of the country’s foremost legal brains,” why will he not do so
for the higher cause?
Enforce principle, uphold ideology
“The lower down leaders must resign owning moral responsibility for
the defeat in their states.”
But on that principle, why should the top leaders not resign?
“Why should we resign when we have already accepted moral
responsibility?”
“And be it noted, whether we win or lose elections, we shall never
depart from our core ideology of Hindutva.”
But what is Hindutva?
“As the Supreme Court has itself said, it is ‘a way of life.’”
But isn’t Islam also “a way of life”? Isn’t Christianity? Indeed,
isn’t the drug addiction of the hippie “a way of life”?
Binding strategy
Your chieftains are at each other? Make them commit a crime
collectively. Let them stab one of their own in each other’s presence.
Each will know that everyone has seen him drive the knife in. That is
what will bind them. And no one will accuse the other, to boot, lest
his own deed be brought to light.
After all, events are moving so fast. High time you convert the Mutual
Projection Society into the Mutual Protection Society.
The dead horse strategy
The final strategy is spelled out in the latest issue of The Other
Side, George Fernandes’ Journal of socialist thought and action, and
requires the littlest adaptation for our context – I will transcribe
it almost literally. “When you discover that you are riding a dead
horse,” the journal reminds us, “the best strategy is to dismount and
get a different horse.” However, in our political parties more
advanced strategies are employed:
1. On the authority of the Gita, declare the horse as “Not dead” –
for, does the scripture not teach us?, “What is real is the soul, not
the body; and the soul was never born, it never dies.”
2. Buy a stronger whip.
3. Wield it on anyone who says the horse is dead in spite of the Gita
– for obviously, he who doubts the Gita has repudiated our core
ideology.
4. Declare, firmly, that the horse is not dead, and, therefore,
nothing needs to be done.
5. Pressed, announce that a committee shall circumambulate the horse,
and, if necessary, suggest potions to revive it; but, so as not to
disturb the horse, ensure that the committee remains secret.
6. Launch a study of our ancient scriptures and our party history to
see how our revered ancestors and founding fathers rode dead horses.
Anyone who doubts that they did, has obviously repudiated our core
ideology, and, so, for him, the whip as in (3) above.
7. Wait for the next breeze – as it sways the horse’s mane, even the
negativists shall see that the horse is alive and well.
8. Harness several dead horses to accelerate the speed.
9. Launch more abhiyans – “Across the country, down to the taluk
level” – so that all can see the horses run.
10. Locate younger jockeys.
11. Pass resolutions, deliver an adhyakshi bhashan to them, do marga
darshan for them, that they shall ride the horses, not jockey.
12. He who points out that the younger jockeys also happen to be the
heavier ones, is obviously out to discourage the horses, and distract
the jockeys. So, for him, the whip as in (3) above.
13. Calculate and show that, as the dead horses do not require any
diet, much less geriatric supplements, to energize and motivate them,
their net contribution is not just positive, it is incalculable – zero
divided by zero, as Aryabhatt would have proven, if only he had been
asked, is incalculable, hence infinite.
14. Redefine “running and winning races” – for, obviously, the horse
that lies unmoved in the midst of the world’s frenzy and bustle, is
the real sthith pragyan, and, as our scriptures have so clearly
proclaimed, the sthith pragyan is the real victor.
15. Finally, of course, promote the dead horses to the core group.
16. He who now entertains a doubt about them has not just repudiated
our core ideology – for that is reverence for our leaders – he has
repudiated our core group. Hence, for him, not the whip as in (3)
above. For him, expulsion.
That is what will prove that the horses are not dead. They can throw a
kick. [END]
(The writer is a BJP MP in the Rajya Sabha)
chhotemianinshallah
Contributed by blackandred on Thu, 2009/12/31 - 2:53pm.
In sections: AfghanistanWarInterview
Interview: Antonio Giustozzi on the New Taliban
By Ian Sinclair; December 31, 2009 - Znet
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/23500
Source: Morning Star
In the introduction of his new book Decoding the New Taliban, Dr
Antonio Giustozzi argues the public debate surrounding Afghanistan has
been "dominated by superficial or plainly wrong assumptions."
In an attempt to gain a better understanding of those violently
resisting British and NATO forces in southern Afghanistan, I spoke
with Giustozzi at the London School of Economics and Political
Science, where he works as a research fellow in the crisis states
research centre.
Since 2003 the 43-year-old Italian academic has visited Afghanistan
about three times a year every year, including 12 months working for
the United Nations assistance mission in Afghanistan. This extensive
fieldwork informed his 2007 book Koran, Kalashnikov and Laptop: The
Neo-Taliban Insurgency in Afghanistan and his new study - two academic
volumes that have made him the foremost expert on the Taliban working
in Britain today.
Giustozzi uses the term "neo-Taliban" or "new Taliban" to refer to the
Taliban which has been operating in Afghanistan since the US-NATO
invasion and occupation in October 2001. "It has the same leadership,"
he notes, but it is now "an insurgent force - essentially an
underground operation."
In southern Afghanistan, an area dominated by ethnic Pashtuns, the
Taliban and the insurgency are essentially synonymous, Giustozzi says.
He explains that from 2001 to 2006 the Taliban largely consisted of
small groups of young, hardcore fighters based in remote rural areas.
"By and large there was a certain correspondence between clerical
influence and the spread of the Taliban, for the obvious reason that
during the Taliban government they were in power," he says. "The
judiciary was totally clericalised. Education was largely clerical.
All the governors and ministers were mullahs."
In areas such as the south where state education has been
traditionally weak, Giustozzi notes: "The Taliban and clergy have been
proportionally stronger." He estimates that 10-15 per cent of Afghans
are linked to the clergy directly. "On top of this there are the
people who are not mullahs themselves but are very religious and
likely to be influenced by the clergy," he adds.
From this core base, the Taliban was able to gain additional support
from marginalised people who were dissatisfied with or opposed to the
government presence in their community through a gradual process of
Talibanisation. "If the Taliban had been in a community a long time,
the Taliban fighters would marry local girls and the Taliban
themselves would actively eliminate elders they didn't trust."
However, Giustozzi sees the large-scale NATO deployment to the south
in 2006 - the British to Helmand, the Canadians to Kandahar and the
Dutch and Australians to Oruzgan - as "a turning point" in the
conflict.
"Up to 2006 Helmand was not a stronghold of the Taliban," he says.
"They were not able to fight openly. Then from 2006 there was a major
upsurge in resistance against the British."
This resistance "was crushed" by the British forces, with thousands of
Taliban fighters dying. However, Giustozzi says if you look at the
fighting from the Taliban's perspective, "it gave an impression, not
only in Helmand but throughout the country, of popular mobilisation -
a people's war against the British. Whole communities rising up."
In addition the large number of Taliban casualties meant whole
"communities got disrupted and destroyed. And people, particularly
young men, were on the loose. These people became recruitable by the
Taliban as core fighters."
Similarly Giustozzi believes what has become known as the battle of
Pashmul was another example of what he calls the "Tet offensive
effect" - when a superior military force is successful on the
battlefield, but loses the propaganda war.
Engaging a large Taliban force in the vineyards just outside Kandahar
in summer 2006, the newly arrived Canadian troops inflicted a heavy
defeat on the Taliban. But, as Giustozzi explains, "in terms of
perceptions it showed the Taliban was able to fight against NATO with
all its power on open ground near Kandahar and showed they were no
longer a marginal movement but a big force to be reckoned with."
Just like the British experience in Helmand, this propaganda success
"started to have a big effect in terms of recruitment and opened new
constituencies to Taliban influence," he says.
Although speaking to Giustozzi for more than an hour is certainly
informative, it is difficult to tell what he personally thinks about
the war in Afghanistan. Perhaps this is a reflection of the nature of
academic analysis, with its emphasis on objective and detached
thinking.
Throughout the interview he continually highlights the contradictory
nature of Afghanistan and the current war and rarely provides blanket
answers. Instead he chooses to highlight the importance of local
factors, such as power struggles and individual self-interest, and
bureaucratic explanations.
Regarding President Barack Obama ordering an additional 30,000 US
troops to Afghanistan, Giustozzi argues that the "numbers don't mean
much.
"It depends how they use the troops," he says. "If the troops stay in
the barracks it won't have any effect."
However, if the US soldiers engage the Taliban and the fighting is
"indecisive, protracted and creates destruction" he contends this is
likely to have "a destabilising impact, certainly at the beginning.
Also it produces extremists."
Giustozzi's description of growing support for the Taliban and his
belief that between 60,000 and 70,000 Afghans are now actively
involved in the insurgency jars uneasily with the dominant narrative
in the West of the Taliban being very unpopular.
In particular I ask him about the 2009 BBC/ABC News opinion poll
conducted in Afghanistan which put support for the Taliban at around 9
per cent and support for the government at 65 per cent.
"The 9 per cent is an underestimate," he replies. Having studied the
methodology of previous BBC/ABC polls, Giustozzi explains it is very
unlikely that the polling staff traveled to the rural areas in the
south - "where the Taliban are" - instead focusing on the cities and
provincial centres.
"The sampling is very, very biased ... there are very few unemployed
people, whereas even the government says unemployment is 40 per cent.
"In the poll 5 per cent were police and army, whereas in Afghanistan
the actual percentage of the population in the army and police is 0.2
per cent. Fourteen per cent were managers and directors. There were no
mullahs."
If the sampling was balanced, he estimates the Taliban would get
around 15 per cent support nationwide and 30-40 per cent support in
the south.
Interestingly, Giustozzi mentions that he has seen polls conducted by
the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) which use different
methodologies and get very different results - much higher support for
the Taliban and much lower support for the government.
"In ISAF polls in early 2009 support for (Afghan President) Karzai was
4 per cent," he says. "They don't release them, of course - because
they show a completely different picture."
Antonio Giustozzi's latest book Decoding the New Taliban: Insights
From The Afghan Field is published by C Hurst & Co, priced £16.99.
Ian Sinclair is a freelance writer based in London, UK.
ian...@hotmail.com.
http://mostlywater.org/new_taliban