WHY INDIA NEEDS RESERVATION IN PROMOTION

Misinterpretation by Judiciary and conscious silence of ‘Civil Society’

Equality is inherent pre-requisite for any civilization or nation to be humane, progressive or even stable. We in India have been lucky and unlucky to witness both aspects of society from ancient times. The advent of varn vyvastha or caste system have been one of the most inhuman, long and surprisingly supported by many sections of Indian society throughout centuries especially the medieval ages. Today after the establishment of Republic of India, the Constitutionalism and Rule of Law is the way through which all the outstanding disputes between society, state and power centers are to be resolved. Not only it is frustrating and painful, it is quiet slow because of all sorts of Machiavellian tricks, hurdles and connivance of various dominating sections in politics, academia, judiciary and all other economic, political and social power wielding procedures and centers. In order to tackle this in a democratic way, our founding fathers founded one of the most unique and complex constitution in order to establish Rule of Law in this nation which is not only capable of propelling the society forward in its evolution but also it does have the potential to transform and heal old historical and social wounds that various sections of societies have inflicted against each other.

Supreme_Court_of_India_-_Retouched.jpg
Supreme Court of India

          Strengthening Rule of Law through Constitutionalism is order of the day. This is fundamentally essential in order to not only address social and other evils in India but also in order to uproot them completely. This struggle towards social justice through constitutional means in politics, in society, in academia and all other aspects is AMBEDKARISM in practice and we while identifying serious hurdles in the path of social justice and empowerment of oppressed believe that the path shown by founding fathers of this nation i.e. Dr. Ambedkar, Mahatma Gandhi etc along with other practitioners of politics and law like Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther and Nelson Mandela is the best path to follow.

dr-ambedkar

Infact we, as ESYA, do have wide political and practical experience of the methods employed by other radical ideologies which are usually based on either some creed, race, religion or perhaps some political ideology (Stalinism/Maoism) which do prefer or perpetrate violence as the only tool against injustice. On the other hand not refuting completely the role of armed struggles in history we must understand that neither we are living in history nor this is some African dictatorship or Middle east theocratic State, we are Secular, Democratic, Socialist Republic of India and being that our responsibility to make it a successful democracy based on justice social and economic becomes much more important. The constitutional legal frameworks prepared by Dr. BR. Ambedkar, especially his vehement emphasis on the rights of oppressed and social justice has given Indian constitution a position much above esoterically and even in matters of constitutional jurisprudence much above the constitutions of Western Democracies whereby, their still awkward and backward attitude towards their own oppressed especially, the tribal people, the blacks, aboriginals etc. is quiet conspicuous. But on the other hand we would like to argue the superior potential of Indian constitution is expressed through its application in Article 16 and all the matters relating to reservation. Where, the spirit and intention of this particular article is derived from Ambedkar’s own philosophy that power sharing among all the sections of society is necessary in order to uplift the oppressed. Hence, the struggle and evolution of Article 16 commences in Indian political and legal scene, causing many dominating sections to often react violently and using all their tricks in order to do away with this provision. But various judgments of Supreme Court of India have infact strengthened this provision and also have highlighted the need of this provision to remain for long time and also to extend in certain more sectors.

Therefore, accepting Constitutionalism as basic tool and procedure of struggle we would like to discuss in details and point out the facts that have recently surfaced regarding the relevance, importance and extension of reservation especially reservation in promotion in government services. Even though it is clear that power sharing in all the power centers is essential in uplifting the oppressed, especially dalits of India, still somehow in academic circles and even among judiciary there is confusion and an uneasy reluctance to apply this principle fearlessly. We shall discuss the evolution of the concept of reservation in promotion and recent debates around it while supporting all the efforts, be it judicial or political in order to manifest the law regarding reservation in promotion and passage of 117th Amendment Bill.

On the last day of Indian parliament’s winter session in the year of 2012 due to ruckus created by member parliaments of BJP there was no meaningful discussion or debate on the issue of Reservation in Promotion which was introduced as 117th Amendment Bill. It is true that inadequacy of representation in higher echelons of administration has been quiet a fact yet no action has been taken. As per Article 16(4) of Constitution, reservations in direct recruitment and in promotions were admissible to SCs/STs in Centre/State government services in promotion to their population till 15/11/1992. On 16/11/1992 in the celebrated case of Indra Sawhney, a 9 judges bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court decided that Article 16(4) of Constitution did not provide for reservation in promotions to SCs/STs but ordered that since reservation in promotion were admissible to SCs/STs through various executive orders since 1954 , the same be continued for another period of 5 years only. This buffer period was provided to the executive to enable them to take appropriate measures to implement the Indra Sawhney order. In order to remove this anomaly, the parliament, through 77th amendment of the constitution, added a new clause 4(A) in Article 16 i.e. 16(4-A) and that the promotions must be given to the members of SC/ST from the back date of 17/06/1995.

BUT even after the parliament providing for reservation in promotion through the above mentioned amendment(77th ) with the aim of filling the gap in  the higher grade posts of Government Services because of the INADEQUATE REPRESETATION of SCs/STs; still the implementation of it went through considerable delay when Supreme Court itself introduced ‘CATCH UP PRINCIPLE’ and unfortunately gave its own definition of promotion by removing consequential seniority from it which prima facie goes against the principles of service jurisprudence and most importantly it devoid the 77th Amendment Bill from intended empowerment and giving administrative power  to historically deprived section i.e. SCs and STs.

  1. CATCH UP PRINCIPLE – On 10/10/1995 in the case of Virpal Singh Chauhan Supreme Court made a blunder. It introduced something called ‘catch up principle’ which means, that once a SC/ST candidate is given accelerated promotion (R.K. Sabharwal) in any government service he or she will not be able to maintain his/her Seniority on such promotions. That here it is evident that whole idea of giving accelerated promotion or of 77th Amendment is Empowerment of the deprived section through promoting them in higher echelons but what kind of empowerment is done when promotion is given without seniority ? It was gross violation of principle of equality, service jurisprudence and an act inconsistent with spirit of Indian constitution’s basic structure. Similarly same principle was upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajit Janjua that if catch up principle is not applied then principle of equality is violated. Because of this principle hundreds of members of the SC/ST community were not given consequential seniority and were deprived from being adequately represented in higher echelons of administration.
  2. 85th and 117th AMENDMENT:- Hence in order to remove this inconsistency, to dilute and repeal the catch up principle parliament of India again amended the constitution of India where the term consequential seniority was introduced in Article 16(4)A. In the Object and Reasons of the 85th Amendment parliament of India agreed and accepted that “ The judgements of Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs Virpal Singh Chauhan and Ajit Singh Janjhua Vs State of Punjab, which lead to the issuance of OM dated 30/01/1997, have adversely affected the interest of Government Servants belonging to Schedule castes and Schedule Tribes category in the matter of seniority on promotion to the next higher grade.” Hence parliament made sure that along with promotions consequential seniority is also given and catch up principle is repealed. The following is the data published by National Commission for Schedule Castes in its Seventh Report showing the percentage of the inadequacy of SCs/STs in Higher Posts of Administration-
Group Total SC Percentage  ST Percentage
A 98066 10998 11.21 3382 3.45
B 144145 17915 12.43 5020 3.48
C 2377895 386142 16.24 154314 6.49
D (excluding Sweepers) 956947 167947 17.55 64865 6.78
Sweepers 132102 79850 60.45 6456 4.89
Total (Excluding Sweepers) 3577053 583002 16.30 227581 6.36

 

 

 

  1. NAGRAJ & OTHERS VS UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS:-

To the much heartburning of right wing minded population in the country the repealing of the catch up principle was a hammer blow of parliament on the supremacy of the privileged on the higher echelons of the administration. Hence they challenged all the related amendments of the constitution. The constitutionality of 77th, 81st,  82nd  and 85th Amendments were challenged in the above mentioned case where the petitioners contended that consequential seniority cannot be given to the members of SCs and STs once the accelerated promotion is granted. Even after upholding the constitutional validity of all the amendments Hon’ble Court was of the point of view –“ Para 123:- However, in this case, as stated above, the main issue concerns the extent of reservation. In this regard the State concerned will have to show in each case the existence of compelling reasons, namely, backwardness, inadequacy of representation and over all administrative efficiency before making provision for reservation. As stated above, the impugned provision is an enabling provision. The state is not bound to make reservation for SCs/STs in matter of promotion however if they wish to exercise their discretion and make such provision, the state has to collect quantifiable date showing backwardness of the class and inadequacy of the representation of that class in public employment  in addition to compliance with article 335.

          Hence, the idea of quantifiable data, of every state proving the inadequacy of SCs/STs and backwardness is absurd, weird, bizarre as well as shockingly inconsistent with the spirit of the Amendments -77th, 81st, 82nd and 85th. . In opposition to this whole idea Parliament had introduced 85th Amendment and later on 117th Amendment as well.

  1. There is infact no need to collect data to show the inadequacy of representation of the communities in question especially when it is already established in Indra Sawhney’s case that it is not any empirical data which will show the backwardness but historical and sociological factors which are the reasons of backwardness of SCs/STs. This means that Judiciary must work in harmony with the social reality and political will of the people of India as is mentioned in the Objects and Reasons of the 85th and 117th Amendment Bill. The judgment of M.Nagraj in this respect is in contradiction with three major factors regarding the so called SCs/STs which has to be take into account are – 1. Backwardness 2. Inadequacy of representation 3.Administrative efficiency

Here we shall discuss these factors briefly to establish that no state is required to give some quantifiable data to prove the following –

  1. Backwardness of the SCs/STs for the purposes of reservation in promotion :-

There are large number of judicial findings to show that the backwardness of SCs/STs is not measured in individual cases but as a block or the community as a whole. A constitution bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in E.V. chinnaiah Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Others  in para 93 observed :-

 “ Schedule Castes; however is not a caste in terms of its definition as contained in Article 366(24) of the constitution. They are brought within the purview of the said category by reason of their abysmal backwardness. Schedule Castes consists of not only the people who belongs to some backward caste but also race or tribe or part of groups within castes, races or tribes.”

The judgment of Apex Court in M. Nagraj’s case asking for a basis for backwardness does not match with the provisions of Constitutions. As far as SCs and STs are concerned, it is clear that in terms of Article 341 and 342 of the constitution, ‘backwardness’ relates to castes and not persons but in the M. Nagraj case the Supreme Court has tried to define backwardness in relation to person/government servant, whereas in Indira Sawhney’s case the Apex Court in para 779 specifically observed that :-

Lowlier the occupation lowlier the social standing of the class in the graded hierarchy. In rural India occupation and caste nexus is true even today. A few members may have gone to cities and even abroad but when they return they barring a few exception go into the same fold again. It does  not matter if he has earned money. He may not follow a particular occupation but still the label remains. His identity is not changed for the purpose of marriage, death and all other social function. It is his social class that is still relevant.”

Further in para 788 in Indira Sawhney Vs Union of India Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy observed that :-

The Schedule Tribes and Schedule castes are without a doubt backward for the purpose of clause ; no one has suggested that they should satisfy the test of social and educational backwardness.”

          Again in para 796-797 it is observed that :-

It is not correct to say that the backward class contemplated by Article 16(4) is limited to the socially and educationally backward classes refered to in Article 15(4) and Article 340, it is much wider. The test of requirement of social and educational backwardness cannot be applied to SCs/STs, which indubitably falls within the expression ‘backward class citizens’.”

It is also very relevant to take note that Indira Sawheney case was decided by 9 judges Bench whereas M. Nagraj case was decided by 5 Judges bench only and, therefore, the decision in M. Nagraj case cannot supersede the decision taken in Indra Sawhney’s case. The decision was given as it was given in ignorance of earlier decisions taken by the larger bench which dealt with Indira Sawhney’s case. Therefore Indra Sawhney case is valid law of land which does not permit any further justification of backwardness of SCs and STs.

2. Inadequacy of Representation:- The idea of promotion in reservation stems from the idea of empowering a historically trampled community, it is more of an ideological application of the principle “ Unequals cannot be treated equally” an affirmative action in the purview of Article 16(4). And Article 16(4) clearly states that in the services of state, SCs are to be provided an opportunity where they are not adequately represented. Constitution commands the sate to make reservation for SCs. So far as education is concerned, reservation is provided to the members of SC/ST/OBC under the central educational institutions (Reservation in Admissions) Act 2006 laying down 15% reservation for SCs, the same yardstick is applicable for the SCs in services under Article 16(4). Therefore, if the state makes reservation in the services as well as in promotions subsequently upto 15% by specifically mentioning in the Statement of Objects and Reasons of 77th Amendment Act that members of SCs and STs in opinion of the Government are NOT adequately represented it is wrong interpretation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court whereby by giving its erroneous decisions in Ajit Janjhua and M. Nagraj it has not only muddled in the findings of Mandal Commission which was upheld further by Indra Sawhney’s Judgement, it has violated the cardinal principles of constitutional jurisprudence and intention of founding fathers, spirit of Article 16(4) as well as opinion of the State.

Further, it is not out of place to mention here that 15% reservation has been provided for the SCs in the services since the advent of the constitution in 1950 through various executive instructions issued by the Government of India and by the different States, but still the minimum prescribed percentage of reservation even in the direct recruitment has not been achieved. If adequate representation in direct recruitment i.e. 15% have not been achieved after 7 decades of independence then how can there be over representation of SCs and STs if reservation in promotion is even allowed ! There are always back logs and vacancies meant for SCs which remain vacant.

Moreover, above the data has been produced which says and proves the inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs. ( For more study of the detailed empirical data regarding the inadequacy of representation please visit website of National Commission of Schedule Castes). Hence, it is absolutely clear that the representation of SCs and STs in states, central government services, UTs have not even reached the minimum required level. Keeping in the view the inadequacy of the representation in direct recruitment constitutional provision for reservation in promotion is a must.

3. Efficiency in Administration:- While considering the validity of constitutional (77th , 81st, 82nd and 85th ) Amendments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.Nagraj Vs Union of India upheld constitutionality of the provision which was inserted by the aforementioned amendments, but impose certain conditions before the benefit is passed on to eligible members of SCs. It was made mandatory for the state to justify promotion in each case. This is a strange philosophy in which one has to give justification for the exercise of one’s fundamental rights.

V.T. Rajshekhar in his book “Merit my Foot”(A reply to Anti Reservation racists), 1996 published by Dalit Sahitya Academy, Bangalore has stated –“ Nowhere in the world ‘merit and efficiency’ are given so much importance as in India, which is now pushed to the 120th position virtually the last among different countries in the world.”

On the same point and while Ridiculing the right wing slogan of ‘efficiency’ Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy, in K.C. Vasanth Kumar VS State of Karnataka observes :-

Efficiency is very much on the lips of the privileged whenever reservation is mentioned. Efficiency it seems will be impaired if the total reservation exceeds 50%; efficiency, it seems, will suffer if the, ‘carry forward rule’ is adopted; efficiency it seems will be injured if the rule of reservation is extended to promotional posts, From the protests against reservation exceeding 50% or extending to the promotional posts or against the carry forward rule, one would think that civil service is a heavenly paradise into which only archangels, the chosen elite, the very best may enter and may be allowed to go higher up the ladder. But the truth is otherwise. The truth is that the Civil Services is not paradise and the upper echelons belonging to the chosen classes are not necessarily models of efficiency. The underlining assumption that those belonging to the upper casts and classes , who are appointed to the non reserved posts will, because of their pre-assumed merit, ‘naturally’ perform better than those who have been appointed to the reserve posts that the clear stream of efficiency will be polluted by the infiltration of the latter into the sacred precincts is a vicious assumption, typical of superior approach of the elitists classes.”

This ridiculing of that casteist mentality that consciously and unconsciously revolves in the collective consciousness of the people in India is apt and accurate. This phobia that reservation will somehow reduce the efficiency of the administration in itself is deliberately made and built up by certain sections of society for their ulterior motives or because of their undemocratic attitude. Hence further Justice Reddy writes –

“ ..Why not ask ourselves after 35 years of independence the position of SCs, etc has not greatly improved ? Is it not a legitimate question to ask whether things might have been different, had the district Administrators and the State and Central Bureaucrats drawing larger numbers from these classes? Courts are not equipped to answer these questions, but the courts may not interfere with the honest endeavours of the government to find the answer and solution.”

Hence, this is how the argument of M.Nagraj’s self made idea of collecting a ‘quantifiable data’ and Ajit Singh Janjua’s removing of consequential seniority from the concept of promotion in order to deny reservation in promotion fails miserably in view of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s earlier findings again and again. Moreover, how evident it is to observe that this attitude/notion that persons appointed or promoted through reservation will not be efficient, this in itself is a sophisticated form of castesim as well as the main reason and factor of maintaining the backwardness of the concerned communities in question. And in order to fight this notion reservation is given under Article 16(4) !

Need to consider change in the Statement of Objects and Reasons of 117th Amendment Bill :-

          We, in brief have tried to highlight the major aberrations and blunders in various interpretations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court. We are of the humble point of view that the efforts made by Parliament sooner or later are bound to be victorious. Yet, as we have expressed that there is already enough empirical proof regarding the inadequacy of the representation of SCs and STs in the Government services, moreover, conceptually and in accordance with the principles of Indian constitutional jurisprudence the demand of proof regarding the backwardness of already trampled and exploited community for hundreds of years is not justified. Hence, we are of opinion that changes must be made in the third paragraph of the Statement of Objects and Reasons of 117th Amendment Bill which is reproduced here as under:-

It has been observed that there is difficulty in collection of quantifiable date, showing backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment. Moreover, here is uncertainty on the methodology of this exercise.”

          According to this paragraph mentioned in the bill the reason for not producing the empirical data is been mentioned as some practical problem and infact the real question at hand, the real philosophy and inherent mistake of the idea of proving the backwardness of SCs and STs is no dealt properly. Rather it seems it is been swept under carpet. We, on the other hand would like to deal the bull by its horns and the fact that the whole idea of proving the backwardness of the SC and ST community and proving its inadequacy is wrong interpretation of ‘equality before law’ (Article-14), it is individual specific, this is interpretation more in the light of Lockean individual equality than Indian version of equality which is only to be interpreted under the light of socialist character of our preamble.

Hence, we would propose that instead of shying away from the problem of collecting the quantifiable data it must be mentioned boldly that where class is backward as accepted again and again by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney, individuals cannot be treated separately from that class in case of SCs and STs.

CONCLUSION:-

          It is quiet conspicuous and clear that struggle against all that is unconstitutional, undemocratic and non-progressive is duty of every enlightened citizen of India. The struggle of founding fathers and framers of Constitution in favour of the oppressed, deprived and destitute is self evident. Hence, it becomes imperative for us as students, as youth and as fellow citizens to sharpen the struggle inside and outside the parliament of India in favour of the passage of 117th Amendment Bill.

          We, Eklavya Sudents and Youth Association have made a humble effort and have tried to form an argument trying to cover the major principles of constitutional jurisprudence, interpretation of  our founding fathers and have tried to highlight the anomalies and aberrations in the judgments of Ajit Janjua, Virpal Singh Chauhan and eventually M. Nagraj which have adversely affected the interest of members of SC and ST communities.

          Therefore, we would like to present a powerful argument before the people of India in order to expose the conscious silence maintained by so called ‘progressive’ academicians, ‘secular’ media houses and especially the so called ‘liberal’ left. The fact that all these hegemonic sections of Indian society having deep roots in legislation, in judiciary and executive, they always brush aside these matters derailing the process of empowerment of the dalits of India affectively. We appeal to all sensitive and real progressive sections of India to favour and support the passage of 117th Amendment Bill while giving deep consideration on the changes in the language of 117th Amendment Bill so that it does not run again into some legal challenge as to its constitutionality, which has been done by various dominating sections from past 25 years. And we as ESYA also appeal to all the political parties of this nation to act unanimously and speedily in order pass this Bill.

-Advocate Sawinder Singh
Chairman ESYA

           

Citation & Credits:-

National Commission of SCs/STs

Indra Sawhney Vs Union of India

M.Nagraj Vs Union of India

117th Amendment Bill

 

Advertisements

JNU: Ambedkar Vs Left; but opposite in Panjab University, Why?

BAPSA (Birsa-Ambedkar-Phule Student Association) challenging the Left Unity in JNU

jnusu-759

JNU, the land of ideological battles, is well-known place for intellectual potential and dominance of Stalinist left. With the rise of right wing forces after Modi became P.M. in 2014, from Rohith Vemula to Una incident dalits are being attacked ruthlessly. Consequently, dalits who were cunningly communalized by RSS during Lok Sabha election are now coming out of Hindutva fold. After the march of cultural Hindutva of right wing conservative, the left politics which claims to be pro-dalits in its popular rhetoric of Bolshevik revolution, obviously has found some space in political discourse. Though, the JNU’s campus culture and its students’ verdict is not always the real reflection of society but the recent sedition row and overwhelming attempts of Modi government to haunt left hegemony have  pulled the attention of whole nation to link up with JNU. Interestingly, in present scenario, dalits are being lured by all political groups evidently under the banner of ‘annihilation of caste’. Even P.M. Modi warned his party to convince dalits and said that Nationalists are with us, let’s reach out to Dalits, backwards.

ambedkar_illus_20120423
Courtesy  Kractivism

Kractivism -Bridge the Gap Bring the Change

JNU campus has been a hub of Stalinist left and Marxist bastions since its foundation. AISA, a student wing of CPI (ML) Liberation had been winning mandate in student elections for many years. In 2015, Kanhiya, a leader of AISF (the student wing of CPI) fought against AISA and became president of JNUSU. And for now, the JNU bears very different kind of contest where the right wing ABVP has been completely swept away and BAPSA(Birsa-Ambedkar-Phule Student Association) came as strong contender against Left Unity (AISA-SFI). BAPSA, which started just two years ago, chased the Left Unity and lost with a small margin of 409 votes.  Aftermath, the political thinkers are forced to interpret the political contours of newly emerged scenario in JNU. Clearly, the mandate of JNU student election is a synthesis of national political environment and inherent Ambedkar-Marxian contradictions. The nature of right and left politics is complementary, unconstitutional and absolutely hegemonic. Right wing relies on cultural hegemony while spreading false version of history or endorsing hegemonic phase of Manu-Samriti and similarly Left considers its philosophy ultimate champion of all oppressed sections asserting its ‘intellectual’ hegemony while imposing economic interpretation of history.

B.R. Ambedkar, the icon of constitutional democracy, had always motivated downtrodden and socially oppressed people for education, saying knowledge as one of major premises in power sharing. In 1970s, the Naxalite movement under the slogan ‘land to tiller’ and big ill-literacy in dalits (landless) brought them in leftist outfits. Moreover, dalit intellectuals also became dependent on leftist ideology while being far away from Ambedkar’s constitutionalism. Later on, the Bahujanvad of Kanshiram and Janata Politics gave a new independent voice to dalits, minorities and backward classes of India strengthening constitutional democracy. The JNU’s mandate reflects that dalits who are the product Ambedkar’s reservation policy, now following his slogan of  Educate, Agitate, Organize are struggling for independent platform rejecting Left politics, understanding the real difference between the Ambedkarism and Leftism as suggested by Ambedkar :

my party would not align with Communist Party for the plain reason that I do not believe in Communism”.

Instead, the mandate of student election in Panajb University, Chandigarh is surprisingly different. Students preferred ‘non-political’ group PUSU over mainstream parties like NSUI,SOI,ABVP etc. Secondly, the election mandate also brings Marx-Ambedkar ties in question. The extreme left outfit, Students for Society (SFS) got 2494 votes with small margin of 11 votes from second contender SOI and scored third position. Ironically, the Ambedkar Students Association (ASA) again lacked in representing dalits independently and overtly supported SFS. When will dalits, OBC and all the anti-casteism students of Panajb University understand that there cannot be ideological unity between Ambedkar and Marx?

                -Eklavya Editorial Committee

 

PAKISTAN: A Medieval State in 21st Century

Dilemma of Pakistani intellectuals after 70 years

12SM_JG_1173944g

“ If I were a dictator, religion and state would be separate. I swear by my religion. I will die for it. But it is my personal affair. The state has nothing to do with it. The state would look after your secular welfare, health, communications, foreign relations, currency and so on, but not your or my religion. That is everybody’s personal concern! ”― Mahatma Gandhi

“The sovereignty of scriptures of all religions must come to an end if we want to have a united integrated modern India.”-  B. R. Ambedkar

0159

..there was no civilization, nothing before we came to India, there was no architecture, the structure of dome, there was no calligraphic painting infact there was no biryani before we came to India. What they had?  Triangular shaped temples and a very rudimentary civilization”. These were the words of a guest speaker in one of the discussions in a national Pakistani channel whose topic was how Indian culture through Bollywood is influencing ‘Pakistani culture’ as if there is some huge distinction between the two! By ‘we’ he meant Muslims and in whole discussion like majority of Pakistani speakers he wore a blanket of infinite cultural superiority (showing Indian culture inferior) as if Pakistanis are direct heirs of Turks or Arabs or Persians. This small statement sums up lot of aspects regarding Pakistani psyche, the dilemma of identity, the ongoing struggle inside Pakistan to invent false history (to murder history) so that it can be proved to young generations that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan was inevitable. For me it expresses the hollowness of whole idea of any nation state whose basis is religion. Because the consciousness where biryani is considered as ultimate linchpin of cultural superiority can only be maintained in a medieval state based on religion.

peshawar-school-attack-live

The first pre-requisite, the most basic litmus test of a modern nation state is separation of state from religion. If a nation state has to be a modern nation state it essentially cannot and must not claim to belong to a race, religion or ideology. This is the first thing a student of 10th standard in India learns and I find it quiet peculiar that many so called intellectuals of Pakistan are not only reluctant to hit the bulls eye but sometimes altogether put the blame of all that has gone wrong in Pakistan on later military dictators. Whole of ire falls on poor Ayub Khan, Zulfikar Bhutto, America or perhaps Zionist-RAW conspiracy. I seriously have my sympathies with all those sophisticated Pakistani intellectuals who live in US or Australia or England. Perhaps like many, they are unable to question the whole rationale of their nation state’s birth. Pakistan born out of medieval sentiments of hatred, born out of the idea that two communities (Hindus and Muslims) cannot live together, that a nation has to be forged to safeguard a particular religion, that the very meaning of Pakistan is propagation of that particular religion. These and many more reasons of Pakistan’s existence today which essentially is quiet backward and undemocratic (not to forget the special blessings of British and west’s motive for creating a buffer state between India and Soviet Union’s frontier) are hard to accept by most ‘enlightened’ in Pakistan.

There may be exceptional scholarly works by many experts settled in foreign lands yet the core of the problem is not hit at. The fact is that Pakistan was to be a religious state, a medieval, feudal and 12th century idea upheld by a person who never had anything to do with religion-Mohammad Ali Jinnah the Jefferson Davis of South Asia. Consequently, today, Pakistan is nation of most blatant lies because it has to manufacture false history of Medieval India, it has to make claims of culture which essentially is Indian. To add to these problems all of these false histories and narratives are thrown at overwhelming population with overwhelming velocity and overwhelming hatred towards non-Muslims, especially against ‘foxy Hindus’ through media, print media and most effective have been the state owned and managed history and cultural curriculum taught to children in Pakistan. Consequently, one example today of the major difference in collective consciousness between the two nations born in 1947 can be measured through the fact that when a right wing government is formed in India under BJP in 2014, people of India after experiencing two years of attempted polarization reject RSS’s ideology through a shameful defeat of BJP in State Assembly elections in Delhi, Bihar, West Bengal, Kerala, Pondicherry and most probably in near future now in Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and paradoxically in Gujrat as well.  Whereas, Mumtaz Qadri, the murderer of Governor of Pakistani Punjab- Salman Taseer, since Taseer was a liberal and wanted to reform the Blasphemy Laws, is when executed by State of Pakistan,  after his execution, he i.e. Mumtaz Qadri becomes national hero of most in Pakistan. Under siege comes Islamabad stormed by his supporters, almost jammed in protest against this insane terrorist’s execution.

Then the question here is that how come almost the same people, the same society, with same levels of social and political consciousness in 1947, after partition behave in such opposite manners when confronted with same kind of situations? The answer lays in the difference in the nature of two nation states and resultant evolution of societies within those two frameworks of nation states i.e. a secular republic and a religious republic.

Two Nation theory and reluctance of Pakistani intellectual:

State of denial is perhaps the biggest enemy of any society or nation and most serious hurdle to overcome in order to evolve out of hatred and euphoria of Middle Ages. But when this denial come from the hands of intellectuals of society, the sheer facts of history and truth are when denied or avoided by those who by the virtue of their placed position in society or nation were suppose to make efforts in lifting people out of the mess of false histories and faulted notions, when they keep dancing around the bushes but do not hit bulls eye, then it becomes very difficult for that particular society to evolve out of manufactured narrative and hence it is danger first of all to itself and then to rest of the world. Perhaps, there are many Pakistani intellectuals who avoid expressing their honest explication on the idea of a nation based on religion. I refuse to believe that many imminent Pakistani personalities are unaware of that fact that where the real fault is, that the whole idea of merging state with religion is Medieval. Many other progressive commentators in Pakistan may have realized that it is not Ayub Khan or some other Pakistani General who messed things along, it is the very idea of Pakistan (idea of state based on religion) which is nothing but a Medieval – Fascist state and that it is not a modern democracy if it can be identified as some Hindu-Republic or a Christian Republic or Islamic-Republic. A modern democracy essentially has to be a Secular Democratic Republic. Yet time and again we see that even after publication of immense literature on Pakistan the basic justification built is that perhaps Mohammad Ali Jinnah formed a ‘good Islamic Republic’ but military foiled it! That perhaps Mohammad Ali Jinnah wanted a secular nation but something along the way went wrong!

For reference of this outrageous denial by influential Pakistani intellectuals I shall take an example of Farahnaz Ispahani, a very well known commentator, in 2013-2104 she served as Public Policy Scholar Woodrow Wilson International Centre of Scholars. In 2012 she was listed among Foreign Policy magazines top 100 Global Thinkers and she authored a book – Purifying the land of the pure: Pakistan’s Religious minorities. An International online journal called The Diplomat published an interview of Farahnaz Ispahani on March 10, 2016 regarding her above mentioned book. I will be discussing some interesting excerpts from her interview in order to illustrate this pathetic justification built by Pakistanis regarding a theocratic state –

Q- What do you mean by purifying the land of the pure?

A-  Pakistan was originally conceived of as a homeland for South Asia’s Muslims. Pakistan’s purpose was to protect the subcontinent’s largest religious minorities. Overtime, however, religious and political leaders declared the objective of Pakistan’s creation to be the setting up of an Islamic state. Much of the prejudice against religious minorities can be traced to the effort by Islamists to make Pakistan ‘purer’ in what they conceive of as Islamic terms.”

Well, it is amazing the way they try to add sophistication to the idea of Pakistan/state based on religion and the way whole ‘progressive narrative’ is built against the extremist forces. The blame is laid again and again on army and on right wing for all the wrong that is done in Pakistan but the truth is these forces-Islamists as mentioned above in this case- in any nation state are only able to grasp unprecedented power in state machinery and unprecedented influence over society only and only when the nature of state allows it. She (as many other Pakistani intellectuals do) accepted in above statement that Pakistan was formed for one particular community. First of all, a modern nation state is never formed for one community (this infact is a pre-requisite of a medieval or fascist state), it always embraces plurality, encourages plurality and takes proud in it. And this capacity to accept and propagate plurality can only be inculcated in society if the nature of nation state is essentially a secular republic not religious republic. But this is not acknowledged by many Pakistani intellectuals. Further she declares that reason that Pakistan came into existence is ‘protection’ of Muslims in South Asia. Again in 1947 the idea of plural democracies was quiet 250 years old, the idea of constitutional protections, fundamental rights and all the tenets were discussed vehemently and in the end under the auspices of Dr. BR Ambedkar a miracle – constitution of India- was carved out and applied on equally challenging situations- Indian society. Jinnah as a much more successful lawyer than Ambedkar himself, I believe, was much more aware and well entrenched in these concepts of British common law and western constitutional principles yet instead of choosing a modern approach to deal with a religious divide in sub-continent, he on the contrary chose to push for a Medieval idea, an idea dividing a three thousand year old civilization and putting these two nations in a painful and perpetual bloody contest, an act whereby Jinnah stabbed in the back of the likes of Jefferson, Lincoln, Mandela and ofcourse Gandhi and stood in the lines of traitors trying to pull civilization and democracy two steps backward. And yet our Pakistani friends justify and claim that Pakistan was made by some secular people and then subsequently Islamists in order to make Pakistan pure made it an Islamic state! On the other hand these same Pakistani intellectuals, like many Indians (including me), will call those people who want to create a Hindu-Nation as Hindu-fascists but the people who created a Muslim-Nation (Pakistan) are declared so boldly by these same intellectuals as secular! I would argue vehemently that the idea of Pakistan is medieval and nature of Pakistani state is Fascist through and through.

These efforts of Pakistani intellectuals in complicating the whole idea of Two Nation Theory (Pakistan a Muslim country and India a ‘Hindu’ country) in order to make the division of subcontinent on basis of religion appear as modern and progressive and somehow inevitable is in itself a great disillusionment. The idea of dividing civilizations, peoples and nations on the basis of religion or race is and can never be termed as modern or democratic no matter what the historical conditions were. This attempt of sophisticating otherwise a very rudimentary sentiment of religious division in South Asia and then justifying it reminds me of Lincoln-Douglas debates in the year of 1858, where if any prudent person observes this debate closely she(or he) will observe that Mr. Douglas who under the garb of people’s rights as ‘popular sovereignty’ advocated for Kansas-Nebraska Act whereby if Act was to be passed then it would allow people to decide whether the newly formed states of Kansas and Nebraska will have slavery or not. During this famous debate no matter in how sophisticated manner Douglas in order to justify his argument invoked democracy or Rousseau, Abraham Lincoln came back every time with simple myth busting speeches explaining that how this very statute-Kansas Nebraska Act- is nothing but a sinister scheme of southern slave holders in order to transform whole of United States of America as a slave state, a Nation not for liberty and plurality but a nation only for one race.  And how easily it will become apparent that perhaps arguments made by Muslim League leaders in 1940’s in favour of making  Pakistan- a nation for one community which they put  as  Nation in order to ‘safeguard’ Muslims and arguments of Pakistani Intellectuals as mentioned above are similar to the arguments made in the favor of America being the country of only one race (White race). These two episodes in History, American Civil War and partition of India represent the soul of plural democracies fighting against the idea that two communities (whites- blacks or Hindus- Muslims) can never live together in perpetual peace as equals, that whether America/India was going to be a nation of one race/religion or nation of all races and religions. Hence, Pakistani intellectuals today can make all sorts of sophisticated arguments in favour of a nation state based on one ideology/religion/community but the fact of the matter remains that a modern nation state is conceived in liberty and perpetuates plurality as understood by likes Lincolns, Sewards, Gandhis and Ambedkars and founding fathers of Indian secular democratic republic and this principle cannot be diluted at any cost. There is no justification of building a medieval fascist state and then producing arguments that something went wrong subsequently. No, no, from the seeds of a cactus you cannot expect a mango tree.

 Further in the interview Farahnaz Ispahani says- “When Pakistan was founded in 1947, Quaid e Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, clearly stated that non-Muslims would be equal citizens in the new country…………. Unfortunately, as part of the gradual Islamisation of Pakistan, the average Pakistani is not taught Jinnah’s true version of a pluralistic and inclusive society.

So if Jinnah’s version was pluralistic and inclusive then why the need of separate nation on the basis of religion (idea absolutely hostile to any notion of secularism) in order to save a minority which was quiet possible through rule of law and constitutional means? How many outrageous contradictions can be found in this statement? According to the speaker above first of all, Jinnah made a nation because he was sure that minority will not be safe in India but then he was sure that the country he will make on the basis of irreconcilability between Hindus and Muslims will be able to provide dignity and safety to minorities! This is an amazing and a shameful self contradiction. If Hindus and Muslims cannot live in India peacefully, according to Muslim league and Jinnah, then how could they live peacefully in Pakistan? Why all the local languages were murdered and trampled upon and a one exclusive language- Urdu was superimposed on otherwise linguistically plural population in newly born Pakistan under Jinnah? Was this plural and inclusive vision of Jinnah? The truth is once you have dwelt and acted on the idea that communities cannot co-exist peacefully, that you will have to divide a civilization or a nation but not press for better rule of law and constitutional means for protection of minorities, that once you are convinced and   formed a nation where you will have to murder all the local languages and cultures and impose one foreign language violently (the act which ultimately caused liberation of Bangladesh) then you are not a democratic secular person and you certainly do not have ‘version of pluralistic and inclusive society’, but you are basically fascist or perhaps opportunist at the most. May I ask that can you divide an ancient and essentially plural civilization on the basis of race or religion and then be termed as pluralistic and inclusive? Perhaps for many of them Jinnah was a secular and modern person because he loved Shakespeare, guess what, Hitler loved French paintings and allegedly Stalin loved American movies, does that make one of them not a fascist and another a compassionate dictator?

Many of these Pakistani intellectuals dwell upon the idea of gradual Islamisation of Pakistan as root cause of all problems. I believe they need some basic lessons in secular and plural nation state constitutionalism. They can blame Liaqat Ali Khan or Ayub Khan or try to find fault in formation of making of constitution of Pakistan, but the truth is that a nation state is built on the very basis of set of ideas that it was conceived with in the first place and in this case the premise on which Pakistan was born and built upon is Nation for one community with poisonous narratives of historical supremacy. The Muslim league was nothing but a band of aristocratic, feudal leaders with fascist leanings or as Javed Akhtar will put it aptly RSS is but mirror image of Muslim League, fundamentalist and fascist to the very core. Can we expect a nation made by RSS leaders a secular Hindu republic? It is just like stating – Oh sorry, Lenin died early and power came in hands of Stalin that is why such a mess, in case it was Trotsky then it would have been something different. Oh sorry, power came in hands of Hitler and he killed all the internal resistance in his party and gradually in whole of Germany if it was someone else, say Goering, then things would have been different. Oh sorry Jinnah died early and power came in hands of military dictators like Ayub Khan or Islamists and things went wrong otherwise the story would have been different! It is never about Stalins or Hitlers or Jinnahs or any individual, nation states take the shape of what they are eventually according to the most basic intentions and set of ideas, principles and narratives they are conceived with in the first place. It was the bolshevism  which killed millions in purges not merely one individual- Stalin, it was NAZI ideology of Aryan myth that lead to such slaughter not just Hitler, it was the very idea of Pakistan that has lead to inevitable Islamisation of Pakistan not just the military or Islamists. The Pakistani intellectuals have just got it all wrong, gradual radicalization as root cause of all problems in Pakistan is merely effect of the cause – nature of Pakistan’s nation state.

Opposite evolution of two nations and consequential Pakistani narrative:

Logically, then from Liaqat Ali Khan onwards the idea of what kind of state Pakistan is or what version of Islamic faith it must adopt started as the major discussion in Pakistan. On the contrary, in India, where founding fathers were clear that what kind of state India will be, constituted a committee headed by Dr. BR Ambedkar in order to write this huge, unique, inherently secular and democratic constitution which in essence was to be inclusive of all the unfathomable variety and infinite diversity of remaining Indian nation. One of the major pre-occupation of national legal debates in India in its early decades was how to assert constitutional supremacy over all the wings of state machinery and nature of constitution of Indian union in a very plural society. Right from Golakhnath Vs. Union of India to Keshavnanda Bharti, the evolution of Indian establishment towards a sturdier democratic secular republic has been unprecedented. Especially the debates regarding basic structure of constitution and ever present prevalence of fundamental rights, the idea of social justice for the oppressed sections in Indian society through Article 16 and its intensive application. Whereas, as mentioned above, one of the first acts of newly formed Pakistani state was to debate who Muslims are and who are not, consequently in 1974 constitution of Pakistan is amended whereby Ahmadiyyas legally are considered to be non-Muslims. Ironically, at the same time a country in neighbourhood is busy in embracing all castes, creeds, religions as one plural ancient civilisation, it boldly adopted number of languages as national languages, effectively defeating the Two Nation theory in theory and practice. The assertion of Pakistani leaders, especially Jinnah before anybody else, that Pakistan is for Muslims and India for Hindus was a farce from day one, Pakistan may be was made for one community but India was from beginning a secular, plural and inclusive of all that there is. So how could Pakistani establishment maintain the lie of century that India is for ‘only Hindu’? The only trick was systematic propagation of manufactured versions of history of subcontinent. Again, this was not problem in itself but a natural outcome of state of Pakistan trying to provide any sane rationale and justification for idea of Pakistan in 20th century.

Therefore, understandably, the ancient history of Indian subcontinent, the Nandas, Mauryas, Guptas or the Kushans and other pre-Islamic cultures and histories of Indian sub-continent were last seen in the year of 1961 in the text books of Pakistan neither Pakistani kids are taught story of India after the independence. The only part they are taught effectively is those 800 years of Islamic invaders from Turkey, Arabia and Iran and all of them being the national heroes of Pakistan. For example, there is not a single mention of a medieval Afgani invader Ghazni in official Afghanistan’s narrative or even in Afghanistan’s text books but he is hero in Pakistani narrative because Ghazni defeated his Hindu counterpart and broke a lot more temples especially historical temple of Somnath. Usually in a 21st century such an act is taught to children as shameful and medieval but in Pakistan he is a hero for doing these heinous crimes and children learn of him and many others as part of their national culture and identity, to take this further Pakistani  ballistic missiles are named after Ghazni and Abdali. Consequently today, the Pakistani narrative essentially is anti- India or to be precise and unfortunately anti- democratic. This development of a false and equally stupid narrative which, just like NAZIs, draw inspiration from some imagined past is not just a coincidence, it is but a natural outgrowth of all those nations which were (or will be) inherently conceived as a fortress of a particular race/faith/ideology. These kinds of narratives are always the result when a nation state is built out of some kind of revenge sentiment and superiority complex. Soviet Union could have never produced Abraham Lincoln but Stalin, Pakistan could have never produced Nelson Mandela but Zia Ul Haq and jokers like Musharraff.

In lieu of conclusion:

General Akbar khan, the one who invaded Kashmir in 1948, after when he retired, in his autobiography claimed that they are the real warriors, Pakistanis are sons of Mohammad Bin Qasim and Ahmed Shah Abdali, they are descendants of great Abbasids and as they conquered half of the world in medieval times so will they do now, that as was Alexander The Great so was Mohammad Ghori! Infact every that invader and barbaric who has been successful in plundering and looting India is made hero in Pakistan, irrespective that whether that invader came from Mongolia or Turkey, Persia or Arabia, fuelling anti-India sentiment has become the centre point of whole Pakistani Narrative, its reason of existence, its foreign policy and perhaps now we see Pakistani intellectuals trying subvert the obvious truths. The hawkish in Pakistan have set lofty goals of waging war against India for thousand years and unfortunately this mentality and people carrying this mentality are in majority and are well entrenched in all the braches of Pakistani establishments which again is not some Zionist conspiracy but natural outcome of idea of Pakistan.

And on 70th anniversary of our independence I would like to ask our dear Orphans of Jinnah –that  you have wasted all these decades in manufacturing not schools and hospitals but false narratives of inferiority of Indian civilization and urgency of its annihilation through Jihad, then tell me, where are your heroic Macedonians now? Where is your Greek civillisation? Where is your Rome? Where is Mighty Egyptian Civillisation? Where are Akkadians, Sumerians, where are great Aztecs and Incas? Where have gone Persia? ALL LAY BUT IN DUST. We, the humble Indians were there centuries before these civilizations were even born and we are still here centuries after those civillisations have gone. It mattered nothing to this civilization, Hinduism came India absorbed it, Jainism came India absorbed it, Buddhism came India absorbed, Islam came we absorbed it, Christianity and Sikhism came India absorbed them, didn’t even burped. Then came the modern Isms, the so called Socialism and Communism and Maoism, the Capitalism and Imperialism none could destroy, or even change India! Not because people are better warriors or bigger tyrants or had better horses, stronger swords or a crossbow! No, they all couldn’t do it because of India’s acceptance of plurality, its inherent secular nature, its unconditional acceptance of all faiths and ideologies. And the bad news is that this nation is here to stay from ETERNITY to ETERNITY.

We are not sons of Taimurs and Babars, but of Maharaj Bharat and Vikramaditya. If we won’t allow desecration of Babri Masjid at the hands of Hindu fascists, then we won’t allow Jehadis/Fascists to be our heroes. Maqbool Bhat or Burhan Wani can be heroes in Islamabad but not in Delhi and neither in any democratic nation or culture embracing plurality.

Therefore, I will argue that Pakistani intellectuals maybe are the voice of sanity in an insane environment of Pakistan yet we need to have courage to call spade a spade i.e. idea of Pakistan was never a modern idea and Pakistan does not need another military dictator or a general elections but, as M.J. Akbar would put, it needs a Constituent Assembly to re-imagine and manifest a Modern Secular Democratic Republic of Pakistan.

On the other hand, I understand Pakistani paranoia that India and Indians never accepted the partition and perhaps want to usurp Pakistan again. A very common notion perpetuated in Pakistan by its establishment. Perhaps it is true that Pakistan is a reality and what is done cannot be undone and of course Pakistan cannot be asked to commit suicide. But in order to shake off shackles of separation, hatred and fundamentalism, it is a long journey for Pakistan’s civil society, intellectuals and youth starting from the resolve which will get themselves rid of the proxy militant groups they have created till re-inventing the idea and ideology of Pakistan, the ideology which is more in adept to 21st century because clearly a 12th century idea will not work in 21st century.

         – Sawinder Singh

STUPID yet not SEDITIOUS !

        STUPID yet not SEDITIOUS !

 (by Sawinder Singh on 14 feb, 2016)

 Showdown of Godses Vs. Stalins

jnu_650x400_71455502881              463583-kanhaiyakumar

    jnu-protests_650x400_71455281490New Delhi: Students affiliated to the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) protest outside the office of the vice chancellor of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) in New Delhi on Wednesday to vent their ire over a programme describing the execution of 2001 Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru as 'judicial killing'. PTI Photo (PTI2_10_2016_000236B)

New Delhi: ABVP activists protest against an event at JNU supporting Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru in New Delhi on Friday. PTI Photo by Kamal Singh(PTI2_12_2016_000107A)

DSU ( Democratic Students Union) organized an event to glorify Afzal Guru and Maqbool Bhatt in JNU (Jawahar Lal Nehru University) Delhi and shouts – “Bharat ki barbaadi tak jung rahegi jaari

Well, from my experience the first thing I can observe or conclude after watching a video of the fanatic shouting of DSU members-‘Bharat ki barbaadi’ is that, I am not sure whether they will be able to accomplish this but the people shouting will soon have a soar throat and if not taken care of it may quickly transform into serious throat infection which can well develop into a life long allergy!

I was appalled to see  poverty of the arguments made by either party to the debate of this JNU event, even a very upset Arnab Goswami in his show –The Newshour was full on and he asked one of the student leader involved that whether he knows Section 124-A of Indian penal Code (Sedition)? But the funny part was that neither those who were leveling the allegations of sedition knew what and how this section is invoked and nor those against whom it was being leveled. This episode is a classic case of X-Right wing Vs. Y-Right wing and neither of the party is able to develop a secular & democratic argument because actually no party to this debate is  Secular or Democratic. Its actually like all the Nathu Ram Godses Vs Joseph Stalins! I am discussing some of its aspects, you are more than welcome to differ because I am neither of these!

Firstly, about all the non-sense that is claimed by media and Hindu right wing that this event and shouting amounts to being ‘Anti-National’ or ‘Sedition’. Well, simple as it is, it is neither of the above mentioned. Though to a lay man at first reading of Section 124-A of IPC it can be perceived that mere shouting anti- India slogans is sedition but it is not. In an elaborated explanation of applicability of this section and so that it does not became tool in the hands of government Supreme Court of India have laid down certain ingredients of this Section which when are proven in actus reas and mens rea only then it is applied. Shouting ‘Khalistan Zindaabad’ or ‘Bharat ki Baraadi’ is shameful yet not seditious! This is huge heart of Indian Democracy and Rule of Law! Imagine pro Chechenya Sloganeering in Moscow University or Event glorifying Osama-bin Laden in some American University! It is not simply possible but in India everything is. Perhaps couple of weeks ago a Pakistani fan of Virat Kohli waved Indian Flag at the top of his house is already sentenced 10 years in Jail! I wonder for all the Lashkar leaders Pakistan needs proofs and for this poor fellow waving of tricolor was enough!

I am more than happy to get involve in exploring legal and political definitions and scope of sedition under common law, for now this is not the place. But suffice to say this does not amount to Sedition under Section 124-A IPC.

Secondly, About the aims and nature of protest whose permission was taken under the garb of cultural event. There are those people in or against the argument of hanging of Afzal Guru who shout at the top of their voice and consider themselves the best interpreters of the Supreme Court’s judgement sentencing him to capital punishment. The interesting thing is all these people i.e. X- Right Wingers willing to desecrate Babri masjid and Y-Right Wingers willing to destroy India have never read the Afzal Guru’s judgement but will make their argument as if they themselves are Sherlock Holmes. Any of these idiots have never even seen a court, much less a criminal trial, if you will ask them to write a representation to a Tehsildar then they will come to you and say “yaar yeh kaise likhte hain?”!

With such sorry state of affairs, I shall first mention that I am in favour of the Supreme Court’s Judgement regarding Afzal Guru but it is perfectly Ok to differ with Supreme Court. For example I think in M. Nagraj Vs Union of India Supreme Court has not only decisively harmed the interest of SCs and STs of the country but have pushed back the efforts made by Supreme Court in 1991 in Indra Sawhney Vs Union of India for atleast 20 Years! It is a huge loss. So what shall I do? Start shouting ‘India ki barbaadi’?

If anybody thinks that Afzal Guru was wrongly hanged then please protest, agitate to best of your capacity but what should be the natural aims of the protest in case protest is sincerely against Afzal Guru’s hanging and not politically motivated by extremists?  Whether to ensure that in political trails, investigation should be more transparent and whether how can judicial proceedings be made more transparent and fair (in case of political trails)? Or ‘Bharat ki barbaadi tak jung rahegi jaari?

Further, yes you can say that as well and certain other things also. But my question is absolutely not regarding the Afzal Guru, I don’t care if whole of India is protesting against Afzal Guru’s hanging because to certain extent in such acts and protests democratic values are evolved. But my question is regarding MAQBOOL BHATT! Who is Maqbool Bhatt? If protest was against ‘unfair’ judicial proceedings regarding Afzal Guru then from where Maqbool Bhatt got swooped in? If Maqbool Bhatt is a hero then nothing is bad in argument of Khalistan and Bhindrawala is also a hero! And so is Mullah Omar and our all time favorite Al- Baghdadi ! What were and are the real intentions of these protests in JNU, who are involved in it? Is it a genuine out cry of people wanting a solution to Kashmir issue or a well crafted, politically motivated act by a shrewd extreme left wing facing ideological bankrupcy?

Therefore, thirdly,  I once asked a self styled comrade who has embarked himself on a ‘nobel’ cause of the proletariat of India- even though they believe that relations of production in India are semi-feudal and there are no proper proletariat in country hence in order to fight with feudal political order in the nation, armed revolution is inevitable!- that, “Comrade, you always are glorifying and trying to repeat Mao’s Long March in India whereas all those things that those Chinese did a century ago, none of those circumstances exist in India and perhaps without material conditions you wont be able to repeat what Mao did because India is a Union, with perfectly centralized government, Rule of Law increasing at snails’ pace but surely it is and there aren’t much geographically divorced regions in India where government of India’s reach is minimum for you to create ‘base areas’. So how you imagine yourself to follow Mao?” He obviously had no clue what I was asking or how to answer such questions because they usually come across empty headed, impatient and innocent rural youth who are trained to follow than to question ! But in the end I was dumbfounded when I collected and tried to make sense of his answers which concluded that they shall ally themselves iwith separatists in order to create the conditions congenial for a Maoist Style armed revolution known as NDR (New Democratic Revolution)! And the first reaction that I had in my mind was “Hor kehre moorkhan de singh hunde ne”!

Infact, DSU the ‘Democratic’ Students Union is a hard core Maoist organization with its agenda of creating an armed revolution. Now, the situation after the demise of Soviet Union has become more and more clear that the ideological concepts of Communism have lost their ground miserably. I will not say communist organizations are totally irrelevant, nothing is irrelevant in a plural culture and certainly political parties like CPI or CPM shall always add colour to India’s political spectrum. But my point being that these aimless protests are less of a public outcry but a desperate attempts by remnants of radical left wing extremists whose basic agenda is failing very rapidly ! It is a very expression of rotten left politics. The facts that-

  1. Theoretical debates on which the very Maoist politics(and perhaps the justification of violence based politics) rests, like nature of Production -Relations of Indian country side being Semi-Feudal or Capitalist have gone out of relevance what so ever!
  1. Whether the Indian Capitalist class is National Bourgeoisie or Comprador Bourgeoisie? Is more or less meaningless.
  1. Whether ‘Socialist State’ exists or not, Since according to Marx it is only a transition phase but for Stalin it is a proper totalitarian regime capable of committing horrors of unimaginable magnitude in the name of proletariat and class struggle.

Nobody in left phalanxes wants to answer these questions and many  more because sincere answer to these questions will bring the truth on surface! Hence, if you question, then either you are a Trotskyite or a selfish activist with petty bourgeoisie tendencies! Then what is to be done? In the scenario where their own political justifications and ideological pillars are crumbling they needed to find political allies with violent anti-state ideologies so that a fresh lease of oxygen is fused in their ranks. And the Politburo must have concluded – Comrade, this is what Mao did when he joined hands with Chiang kai-Shek ! Do anybody in national media or participating in this debate even understand this?

 For me two important questions arise –

  1. Whether even if a Maoist Organisation behind the scenes collaborates with students having extremist and anti-democratic ideologies and they try to stage their politics in University campuses, should a vibrant and strong democracy like ours simply allege sedition(which is not viable legally) and brush them aside Or inculcate some discipline, some character and fight back the irrelevant anti-human, anti-democratic, extremist ideologies in the realm of ideology and politics ?
  1. Where is a genuine, intelligent, principally Secular and Democratic students’ political force which can put forward its argument, which can without falling into a trap of political necessity of opposing the government even at the cost of allying themselves with anti-democratic forces?

Right now the very people who consider Nathuram Godse a hero are opposing people who consider Maqbool Bhatt a hero!  What is the difference between these forces except the difference in their religions?

Question of Kashmir:

          And then finally comes the burning question of Kashmir. The charge of invading princely state of Kashmir was taken up by General Akbar Khan in 1948 even without the knowledge of Army Chief of Staff of Pakistan who happened to be a British. Having miserably failed in that endeavour then he later invaded Balochistan and State of Kallat whose King by the way was more than interested to join Indian Union, requested Pandit Nehru but he was not interested!

          I am not an expert on Kashmir and certainly not a ‘Nationalist’ who in the fit of nationalism will sing praises of India without rhyme and reason. But I do understand the consequences whenever an armed force occupies hostile population centres or atleast when either party, the occupying or occupied consider the other party hostile. Be it Vietnam or Balochistan or Tibet, story remains the same.

          So is the solution – ‘Bharat ki barbaadi tak jung rahegi jaari’?

                                                              Or

                                          ‘Annihilation of Pakistan’?

          While on the show of Arnab Goswami one of the JNU student leader said that Nehru promised plebiscite in Kashmir and almost every person in favour of Kashmir separation parrots the same argument! I wonder to whom Nehru promised this? Or was this in Nehru’s power? I wonder if any single one of these persons making argument for or against the plebiscite ever -ever read the UN resolution and the pre-conditions of plebiscite in Kashmir? The first most important pre-condition of this was complete demilitarisation of Kashmir. The Indian and Pakistani occupied. Which never happened. Moreover, there are other political and cultural pre-requisites to a plebiscite or to exercise of Right to Self- Determination. A plebiscite is next generation Human Right, it is an expression of increasing degrees of liberty and democracy. But can there be a plebiscite if one community ethnically is cleansed and then the remaining dominant community says lets go for plebiscite? JKLF cannot force one community, Kashmiri pundits/hindus, out of their homes they have been living for centuries, perhaps more than a millennia and then claim to have a plebiscite? Plebiscite is not facilitation of ethnic cleansing but quiet opposite to it.

          Kashmir belongs to hindus and sikhs and muslims alike as every province and region of Indian sub-continent belong to every community, caste and creed without doubt. Then how come some Pakistani backed jehadis claim it to be their territory? Is religion a bigger determinant than nationality based on pluralism? If not, then sorry Maqbool Bhatt is NOT our hero.

          Kashmir problem is not a territorial dispute, it is not a misunderstanding of two nations, it certainly cannot be reduced as military tussle between two countries. The Kashmir issue is essentially an outcome of a Civilisational War that Pakistan and its ideology has waged on India. There is no solution to Kashmir problem because it is not the problem, it is merely a reflection of a problem called ideology of Pakistan! Or as Amrullah Saleh, the ex Intelligence Chief of Afghanistan under the Karzai government (He was the first person to point to Musharaff that Osama is in Abottabad and Musharaff mocked him.) recently said in an interview to Danish Royal College of Military regarding Taliban seizure of a Afghan city Kunduz that, “ If the whole world is one body, then Syria is kidney, you can well live without one kidney but Pakistan is a cancer…”

          And he is not wrong because the very base of Two-Nation theory is Muslim Pakistan and Hindu India. Well, I am sorry India is not Hindu it is secular! The very idea of Pakistan was laid by Muslim league that muslims and hindus cannot live together. Muslims must make their homeland to safeguard their religion and faith against the foxy hindus and sikhs! My first question is who does that to their own motherland? Divide it in the name of religion but Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the Jefferson Davis of South Asia but perhaps we didn’t had Lincoln. Hence, a medieval State is born.

          Kashmir is not an isolated issue, it is inter-dependent with Balochistan and kallat, it is reflection of ideology that one community cannot live with the other in peace. There is no solution in isolation to Kashmir unless the ideology of Pakistan is not defeated. Unless there is secularization of Indian subcontinent there cannot be and must be a solution to Kashmir. I am more than happy to discuss on this topic at length at some other occasion. Here it suffices to say that Pakistan is a Fascist country, if we will never compromise with ideology of a Hindu Rashtra or Khalistan, then we cannot compromise with ideology of an Islamic-Republic as well.

          Hence, there is no question of us accepting Maqbool Bhat or Nathuram Godse our hero. Other than making an effort or slogans against India or Pakistan the effort of students and left in particular should have been a cross-continental drive of secularizing Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Shri-Lanka and Burma as a solution of Kashmir and Balochistan, as a solution of nuclear proliferation, as a solution of wars and unending poverty in the subcontinent. But to the contrary, what can we accept from the followers of Stalin but a staged drama?

Finally, an answer to ‘bharat ki barbadi tak jung rahegi jaari 

I ask question to these people that since you have set yourself a lofty goal of destruction of India, I see that you are unlikely to succeed. There have been numerous mighty empires and civilizations all gone and perished. General Akbar khan after when he retired, in his autobiography claimed that they are the real warriors, Pakistanis are sons of Mohammad Bin Qasim and Ahmed Shah Abdali, they are descendants of great Abbasids and as they conquered half of the world in medieval times so will they do now, that as was Alexander The Great  so was Mohammad Ghori !

          Well, dear comrade-jehadis, Bastards of Abdali and Orphans of Jinnah -tell me, where are your Macedonians now? Where is your Greek civillisation? Where is your Rome? Where is Mighty Egyptian Civillisation? Where are Akkadians, Sumerians, where are great Aztecs and Incas? Where have gone Persia? ALL LAY BUT IN DUST. We, the humble Indians were there centuries before these civilizations were even born and we are still here centuries after those civillisations have gone. It mattered nothing to this civilization, Hinduism came India absorbed it, Jainism came India absorbed it, Buddhism came India absorbed, Islam came we absorbed it, Christianity and Sikhism came India absorbed them, didn’t even burped. Then came the modern Isms, the so called Socialism and Communism and Maoism, the Capitalism and Imperialism none could destroy destroy India! Not because people are better warriors or bigger tyrants or had better horses, stronger swords or a crossbow! No, they all couldn’t do it because of India’s acceptance of plurality, its inherent secular nature, its unconditional acceptance of all faiths and ideologies.

          We are not sons of Taimurs and Babars, but of Maharaj Bharat and Vikramaditya. If we won’t allow desecration of Babri Masjid at the hands of Hindu fascists, then we won’t allow Jehadis/Maoists to be our heroes. Maqbool Bhat and Afzal Guru could have been hero in Damascus or Tehran but not in Delhi and neither in any democratic culture.

Hence, maybe for now DSU’s actions are not seditious but surely DSU’s ideology is one huge stupidity.

– Sawinder Singh

DELHI MANDATE: VICTORY OF CONSTITUTIONAL VALUES AND DEFEAT OF RELEGIOUS INTOLERANCE (by Sawinder Singh on 21 feb, 2015)

  aap

TH11_WIN_2306403g

With shameful defeat of BJP in Delhi Elections, people of India have given a very strong message not only to arrogant and Fascist powers in the country but also a shocking wave of new life in democratic principles across the world. This is victory of not one party but victory of common man over money, muscle and power, it is the victory of secularism over communalism, it is the victory of democracy over concentration of power, it is the victory of spirit of Constitution over conservative values and religious intolerance. In nutshell Delhi mandate manifested the resolve of people in upholding the Preamble bearing “Secularism and Socialism”  for ever as character of Indian Society. Other than that it is a great opportunity for AAP to establish a new model of governance and essence of Welfare State which is enshrined in Constitution. Very shamefully the cruelest state policies have been brutal slum demolition since the 1990s, punishing, pauperizing Delhi’s poorest residents for the state’s failures to ensure affordable housing. Women voted in the hope of safety and dignity, and young people in anticipation of jobs, Delhi’s religious minorities voted in APP’s favour because of mere dismay at the declining climate of religious intolerance through the politics of deliberately manufactured hatred. The idioms and allegations hurled by other parties such as ‘bhagora’, ‘dharnebaaj’, ‘Anarchist’ etc failed to impress people but perhaps only 49 days of governance of the AAP in Delhi earlier was voted as better than the last 60 years of Indian political history. Hence the list is long, the journey hard and uphill. But AAP has the historic opportunity not just to re-write the rules of Indian politics-which it has partly already done but also of running a government which is authentically responsible and sensitive to its most disadvantaged residents. Through this little discussion we hope to evoke and highlight the factors of phenomenon of AAP and possibilities of Youth and Students of India to be part of this grand change and express boldly that soul of India is and always will be “SOVEREIGN, SOCIALIST, SECULAR, DEMOCRATIC, REPUBLIC”.

AAP AN EXPRESSION OF RISING ‘ENTROPY OF LIBERTY’ :-

Usually Indian electoral scene is always the scene of shameful caste politics, elections have been won by the regional and national parties on less of political or academic merit but by money and muscle. The election speeches during subsequent Lok Sabha Elections or any elections in India per say never were filled with heavy ideological or meaningful debates but vulgar propaganda to woo electors on the base of religion and caste. But not only AAP introduced some substantial political and economic agendas but on a closer look the proposed changes by AAP, is expression of rising political consciousness and deepening democracy /representative structures as political and cultural identity of the country. The decentralization of power, promise of creating culture and habit of referendums instead of indirect electoral representations is but something new and revolutionary not only in Indian democracy but  on Globe.

  • Decentralisation of Power through Swaraj Bill :- Power as a concept and ‘natural tendency’ is most debated and sough after in all realms of human communications. More the concentration of power, less humane the system becomes. Concentration of power can be through economic means or political, it has always proved to be menace for human freedom and culture. Even in a complex and liberal democracies like that of United States, Australia or India there remains possibility of immense power concentration. Emergency that was imposed in India by Smt Indra Gandhi in 1975 is one such example which exposed the weaknesses of these parliamentary democracies. We have been living in era of Indirect Parliamentary Democracies. But now because of the rampant development of technology it has been possible to usher in the age of Referendums and direct taking part of people in decision making through curtailing the powers of the elected members in our parliaments and other local representative systems. There are many ways to this, many debates in and against this concept and the procedure which leads to the decentralization of power further in our democracy. Manifesting such revolutionary ideas through mohalla sabhas etc is one of the way as is been experimented by Aam Aadmi Party in Delhi. Moreover Swaraj Bill may be is such an idea which the students and youth must observe and make sincere effort to manifest.
  • Transparency as weapon against corruption :- A democracy belongs to people eternally. Transparency not only in the government records, working and financial transactions of public sectors but maximum and full transparency in working and transactions of Corporations is a must for this democracy to be vibrant. Only transparency for now will ensure that neither the legislators nor the beaurocratic set up is sold out to the corporations. A democratic country can never be of any Religion ( as saffron forces want ) nor it can be a toy in hands of the powerful MNCs and Corporations. It essentially has to be secular as well as system of the people and by the people. Therefore the Youth and students of India must understand that as RTI and Lokpal bill were only a start towards this goal, the fight against corruption demands greater check and transparency in the public and private sectors. Where the newly elected AAP government must keep it in mind, the pressure groups and voice of youth must not fade away and it is the pious job of the party workers and Aam Aadmi (common man) to keep on reminding and forcing the AAP government to follow its promises on these issues.

 DELHI’S VICTORY IS IDEOLOGICAL DEFEAT OF COMMUNAL FORCES :-

 Misinterpreting history in the favour of one’s own political aims, to profess false national chauvinism, to propel hatred on the basis of race or religion or ideology is actually the oldest trick in the game. Mussolini presenting himself as incarnation of Roman Emperors, fake racial superiority of Nazi Germany or equally false political propaganda of extreme class based violence in Soviet Union are but few examples of misinterpretation of history and we all know how these regimes ended !  Now in India the present ruling party is actually one such expression in modern history of humanity. The various religious pressure groups which support BJP have always been there propagating some 5th century religious intolerance. So much so that, that Prime Minister of India in many of his speeches in past actually mentioned India and Indians being slaves from past 800 years ! Clearly, inherent is the discourse of religious hatred whereby the use of such phraseology expresses only the mentality of ‘chauvinist pracharak’ not Prime Minister of a Secular country.

           Hinduattva/Hindu Rashtra, is the term which is being professed by Saffron forces. In their propaganda, imagination and intention it stands nowhere near the ORIGINAL philosophy, sacredness and comprehensiveness of the ancient texts of India. Quiet opposite to it, discourse of Saffron forces is but of hatred, sectarianism and religious fundamentalism which is a shameful distortion of ancient Indian culture, philosophy as well as history. Hence it is important and imperative that students and youth of India must not fall into this degenerated, false version of history and communal ideology. INFACT, the true glory of ancient Indian culture and lifestyle (which is very dear to these communal forces !) is and can be only expressed if Indian masses will uphold the principles of Secularism and Republic. The phenomenon of caste brutality is but later medieval degeneration of Indian society and all the other associated shameful practices like sati. Hence, even the faintest logic to debate on the relevance of Secularism and Socialism is shameful and must be thwarted. Great Indian Social Reformer, Swami Vivekananda remarked, “Religion ceases to progress when unity is reached, which is the case with Hinduism.” It becomes clear that there is no space for religious intolerance and hatred in Ancient India philosophy as well as Modern Democracy.

           But an advertisement released by I&B MINISTRY on January 26, 2015 featured preamble in the background of the advertisement without words: Secular & Socialist.  Also the latest calendar published by Rajya Sabha had the preamble with these words missing. The Shiv Sena’s assertion on dropping the two words has led to widespread apprehensions that there might be a move to change the PREAMLE which infact the party high command has been quick to deny. It should have been ended there, but it is strange to notice that otherwise a very articulate and outspoken Prime Minister somehow have had nothing to say about the religious conversions and organized methods to divide Indian masses in sectarian beliefs. He had nothing to say on the phenomenon such as ‘ghar wapsi’ etc. Hence the intentions of the Saffron forces on trying to replace Secularism and Socialism seem quite evident.

SECULARISM AND SOCIALISM IS THE REAL CHARACTER OF INDIAN SOCIETY: –

The glories of past decades have been attributed to the social harmony in the nation protected by modern Constitution. India, a Secular State, is surrounded by states based on Religion. Death roams free on the streets of these Theocratic States due to sectarian conflicts and under developed Democracy. On the contrary by the virtue of Article 25 and unshaken belief in Constitutional Values India has successfully kept the right wing extremism at bay by following SECULAR approach.

 The economic development, as manifested by Five year plans have been on socialistic principles since independence. Be it Fundamental Rights or Directive Principles of State Policy, Socialist and Secular values are embedded in our Constitution. The socialist ideas, be it GANDHIAN, AMBEDKARITE or NEHRUVIAN are torchbearers of our Constitution. The Socialist/PublicWelfare Economic Policies and Legal Concepts have tried to push the fruits of economic prosperity and social equality to reach the deprived and socially oppressed sections as much as possible.

In the famous  Judgment Keshvananda Bharti Vs. State of Kerala, The Supreme Court declared that Parliament cannot alter the BASIC STRUCTURE or framework of the Constitution and it could not use its amending powers to ‘damage‘, ‘emasculate’, ‘destroy’, ‘abrogate’, ‘change’ or ‘alter’ the ‘basic structure’ or framework of the constitution. Consequently the important question that arises in this context is that “Does Basic Structure includes Socialism and Secularism?” In the Keshavananda judgement the eminent jurists opined explicitly or indicated that Secularism and Socialism are part of Basic Structure. According to Chief Justice Sikri, “Supremacy of the Constitution” and “Secular character of the Constitution” forms part of Basic Structure.

It cannot be denied that there have been many examples of religious fundamentalism manifesting in shameful organsied violence against religious minorities. Delhi massacre of 1984, demolition of Babri Masjid, Gujrat communal riots 2002 are but huge blots of inhuman attitude of Indian political class and the space which has been captured by anti-democratic, communal and backward forces in our national political scenario. Moreover the failure of security forces in preventing such violence and failure of Judiciary in delivering Justice in time adds to the horror of common man. BUT now victory of Aam Aadmi Party where people overlooked all these factors of money, muscle, caste and religion is sure sign of Indian Democracy getting matured and Indian elector being wise. Hence quiet evidently it is the answer of people of India towards the attitude of ruling BJP in past 9 months which has done nothing but tried to divide Indian masses in creeds, sects and religions. Hence Delhi Mandate is victory of Constitutional values, it is the manifestation of real nature of Indian Society which is Secular and Plural in nature from the very dawn of its Civillisation.

ROLE OF INDIAN DEMOCRACY AND NATURE OF LEADERSHIP:-

In both our countries, in India and in America, our diversity is our strength.  And we have to guard against any efforts to divide ourselves along sectarian lines or any other lines.  And if we do that well, if America shows itself as an example of its diversity and yet the capacity to live together and work together in common effort, in common purpose; if India, as massive as it is, with so much diversity, so many differences is able to continually affirm its democracy, that is an example for every other country on Earth.  That’s what makes us world leaders — not just the size of our economy or the number of weapons we have, but our ability to show the way in how we work together, and how much respect we show each other.”  – President Barrack Obama

Today, in 21st century when world market is so closely embedded that there cannot be any isolated military power in old medieval style. The leadership essentially has to be not through bigger Nuclear arsenal or better military equipment but through a progressive, open, plural and democratic culture. It will not be wrong to say that after the defeat in two World Wars Germany adopted this approach, Germany is the torchbearer of European economic stability, cultural unity. Where recent ongoing efforts to reach cease-fire between Ukrainian Army and Russian rebels in Kiev shows Germany’s resolve to maintain peace in the region and lead Europe towards political stability by constantly denying NATO to deploy it forces en masse. It is clear that in 21st century any nation will not be a leader because of the violence or hatred it preaches but how much in its capacity any nation can bring cultural absorption, political stability and economic prosperity to its region of the globe. And today India is at cross roads and India is the only country with multi cultural, linguistic and religious diversity which has the capacity to uphold the principles of ‘Unity in Diversity’ and consequently be an exemplary leader in protecting its cultural diversity, linguistic and religious minorities. But since India is a thorough democracy, this pressure for continually upholding Secular status of the country can be asserted only by the masses and to stop the present government for running this country like some 18th century Prussian State ( where our Prime Minister thinks himself to be Bismarck of South East Asia !).  Still this will not be enough, Indian masses have to be wise enough and nothing much should be expected from this ruling government. The nature of leadership of India can only be one of uniting South East Asia in one economic zone, in propelling harmony and asserting it through education and better medical facilities. Hence choosing and voting for political forces like AAP can be one such step and check on the Communal and Fascist forces and spirit of Democracy in and out of the Country.

SOCIALLY OPPRESSED AND SUBALTERN ARE MISSING !

History has shown us that blind faith in any one ideology or political party has always led to shameful failures. It is very important for the spirit of democracy to be alive and active. And this is only possible when we the youth and students of the nation will be vigil and will be loyal towards the humane consciousness, Fundamental Rights and constitutional values. AAP is a very fresh and young ideology, it must be supported but not be trusted blindly. Infact, there has been a very curious phenomenon inside the AAP’s evolution and coming in power. Unlike the parties like RJD, JD(U), CPI (M) and even BJP itself who smartly have adopted an approach of promoting the socially backward and oppressed sections atleast in their manifestoes and to some extent in working leadership as well, it is strange to find out that a Political Party as vibrant and full of Young leaders as AAP are not clear on matters of uplifting through affirmative action (Reservation) but have had some interesting ideas which seem to be diluting the provisions of affirmative action during many debates in 2014 Lok Sabha Elections ! Moreover interesting to note is that there is NOT a single personality representing any of the oppressed sections of society in party’s leadership ! Which surely should raise some eyebrows. So much so that, when Draft of Jan Lokpal Bill was prepared by Team Anna ( with Arvind Kejrival leading it) they actually ‘forgot’ to give representation to the members of Socially Oppressed Sections in appointments as Lok Pals as is required by law. India is country of millions of destitute, who are more socially oppressed in our villages. It is our firm belief that the term “Socialist” in preamble means protection and upliftment of these backward class citizens not only through the concepts like reservation (which unfortunately is abused by political parties for their vote bank and not for the purpose it was introduced ) but through appropriate political participation and leadership in executive as well as in legislation.

AT LAST, it must be accepted that mandate in Delhi is People’s mandate, it expressed the mood of Indian masses and inherent Secular values of Indian society. Delhi’s mandate is inspiration for poor and middle classes as well as it is a sure symptom of Indian Democracy being matured while overcoming the evils of money, muscle, power, religion and caste politics. Hence we the Youth and Students of India must keep a curious watch on the phenomenon of AAP and must not follow it blindly but on the other hand give genuine support to the issues raised by AAP in future.

————————————————————————————————————————————————

EKLAVYA STUDENTS AND YOUTH ASSOCIATION

March of Subaltern Liberty, Human Unity and Global Democracy

President: Vikramjeet Vick                                                                                         President (evening): Paryas Sharma           Contact No: 9988846069