We are being taken for fools

September 27, 2019

रोहित धनकर

क्या कश्मीर में हालत सामान्य है?

Is everything normal in Kashmir?

हमें सरकार परास्त मीडिया और सरकारी लोगों से सुनने को मिल रहा है कि कश्मीर में सब सामान्य है। सामान्य माने लोग अपनी जिंदगी में मसरूफ़ हैं, बच्चे स्कूल जा रहे हैं, बड़े काम पर जा रहे हैं, बाजार खुले हैं, आवागमन के साधन चल रहे हैं, संचार साधन सब को उपलब्ध हैं, आदि आदि।

The government people and their supporter media are telling us that everything is normal in Kashmir. Normal means people are going about their life unhindered; children are going to schools, adults are going to work, markets are open, transport is working, communication is functioning, and so on.

मेरे पास वर्तमान की यदि कोई भी जानकारी न हो, कश्मीर से कोई भी खबर, अच्छी या बुरी, न भी आ रही हो तो क्या ये विश्वास करने काबिल है की धारा 370 हटाने के बाद और संचार माध्यमों पर बंदिश के बावजूद वहाँ सब सामान्य है?

Even if I have zero information of what is presently going on in Kashmir, can I believe this? Is it possible that after diluting article 370 and blocking means of communication everything is normal?

जब तक सामान्य तौर पर खबरें आती थीं (5 अगस्त तक), वहाँ 30 वर्ष से आतंकवाद का दौर चल रहा था। कई बार आतंकियों के मारे जाने पर हिंसक बंद हुए हैं, सुरक्षा बालों पर नाबालिग बच्चों द्वारा पत्थर-बाजी लगातार कारवाई जाती रही है। अलगाव-वादी धड़ल्ले से भारतीय राज्य को चुनौती देते रहे हैं। ये सब जनता के व्यापक समर्थन के बिना असंभव है। तो यह कैसे हो सकता है कि अब अचानक वे सब शांति-दूत हो गए और सब सामान्य हो गया?

Till we received information from Kashmir, 5th August, there was a serious Islamist terrorist separatist movement there for last 30 years. Many a times there have been violent public protests against killing of terrorists. Minor children were being used for stone pelting on security forces. Separatist were openly challenging Indian state and were raising slogans of “I am Pakistani” in large public. All this is not possible without substantial public support.

यह संभव है की दूर दराज के कुछ गाँव सामान्य हों। पर अलगाव-वाद के शहरी गढ़ सामान्य होंगे यह विश्वास करना मुश्किल है। यह विश्वास करने का आग्रह करना हमें अपने सामान्य चिंतन के तरीकों और पूर्व-ज्ञान को तिलांजली देने का आग्रह करना है। अर्थात, कश्मीर में सब कुछ सामान्य है की रत लगाने वाले हमें यातो मूर्ख समझते हैं, या चाहते हैं की हम आँख मूँद कर उनपर विश्वास करलें, अर्थात अपने विवेक से नाता तोड़ लें।

When these were the conditions so recently, is it possible that now everything is suddenly gone normal? Yes, it is possible that some far-flung villages are normal. But can it be believed that the urban hubs of separatism and Islamist terrorism have become normal now since the dilution of article 370? Urging us to believe such an impossibility is tantamount to asking us to abandon our ways of thinking and discard all our previous knowledge of Kashmir. All this means that those wo are continuously repeating that everything is normal in Kashmir take us for fools or want to we should abandon our reason and have blind faith on them.

कश्मीर में 13,000 बच्चे गायब हैं?

13,000 children are missing in Kashmir?

कुछ जाने माने नामी-गिरामी मानवअधिकारों के परोंकार हमें बताते हैं की कश्मीर में 5 अगस्त के बाद 13,000 बच्चे गायब हो गए हैं, जो सुरक्षा बालों ने किए हैं। क्या ये संभव है?

Some well known human rights activists are telling us that 13,000 children are missing (implied abducted by security forces) in Kashmir after 5th August. Is it believable?

इस पर पहला सवाल तो यही उठता है की उन्हें अपनी 3-4 दिन की यात्रा में यह संख्या कहाँ से मिली? वे स्वयं इतने कम समय में 13,000 बच्चों के घरों में जा कर उनके गायब होने की पुष्ठी करने में तो सक्षम नहीं हो सकते। और यदि घरों में गए भी हैं तो भारत-विरोध का इतना जबर्दस्त महोल होने की स्थिति में उन्हें जो जानकारी दी गई है वह पूरी की पूरी सही है, इस की जांच कैसे की?

The immediate question that arises is: how did they arrive at this figure in their 3-4 days so-called fact-finding visit? It is not possible for them to conduct a house to house survey in such a short time. Even if they have visited so many houses how did they confirm that all the information given to them in a strong anti-India atmosphere is correct?

यदी, यह संख्या उन्हें किन्हीं सामाजिक या राजनैतिक कार्यकर्ताओं ने बताई है तो उन की विश्वसनीयता कैसे सुनिश्चित की? क्या लंबे समय से भारत विरोध में शामिल कार्यकर्ताओं के बयान पर बिना सोचे समझे विश्वास किया जा सकता है? जिन लोगों ने इन को यह सूचना दी उन्होने संचार माध्यमों की अनुपस्थिति में और आवागमन में अवरोध के बावजूद ये जान कारी पूरे कश्मीर से कैसे प्राप्त की?

If these ‘facts’ are given to them by local social-political activists, how did they ascertain the reliability of this information? Is it reasonable to believe anti-India activists without further corroboration? Further, how did their informers arrived at these figures in absence of means of communication and under conditions of restricted movement?

चलिये तर्क के लिए मान लेते हैं की वर्तमान भारत सरकार एक दानवी सरकार है। पर कश्मीर प्रशाशन में, कश्मीर पुलिश में तो बहुर सारे स्थानीय लोग भी हैं। तो क्या वे सब अचानक इतने निर्दई और दानवीय हो गए की इतने बच्चों को धड़ाधर गायब कर देंगे? क्या भारतीय सुरक्षाबल इतने बड़े पैमाने पर इतने अत्याचार कर सकते हैं? यहाँ बात किसी एक सुरक्षाकर्मी के किसी को मार देने की, या कुछ बुरा कर देने की नहीं है। बल्की बहुत बड़े स्तर पर सुनियोजित अत्याचार का मामला है। मुझे यह संभव नहीं लगता।

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that present Indian government is an evil government. Still, the local administration and local police are largely maned by local Kashmiris. Is it possible that they all suddenly became so evil and ruthless that will start abducting so many children? The issue is not of one security personnel losing control and killing someone. Abducting 13,000 children is possible only under a general policy by large number of security personnel. I don’t find it believable.

तर्क करने के लिए ये मानते हैं की चीन की तरह इन बच्चों को किसी जगह लेजाकर कट्टर-पंथ से हटाने की कोई कोशिश की जा रही है। तो फिर ,यदि इनके पास ऐसे सधान थे की ये सारे कश्मीर के गायब बच्चों की सही जानकारी पाने में सक्षम थे, तो इनको उन बच्चों का क्या हुआ? वे कहाँ हैं? उनके साथ क्या किया जा रहा है? यह जानकारी जुटाने में क्या मुश्किल हो सकती है? ये लोग हमें यह आगे की जानकारी क्यों नहीं दे रहे?

For the sake of argument, let’s again assume that the children are abducted, and taken to camps to de-radicalize. In such a case, if these fact-finders had means to find out the number of missing children, they should have means to find out where they are taken and what is being done to them. Why are they not telling us this? Is it possible that they are resourceful enough to find out how many children are missing in the whole of Kashmir but not resourceful enough to find our where they taken to?

निष्कर्ष: ये भी हमें अपने विवेक तो तिलांजली दे कर इन पर अंधा विश्वास करने का आग्रह कर रहे हैं। हमें मूर्ख समझ रहे हैं।

One has to conclude that these avataars of truth are also asking us to abandon our reason and have blind faith on them.

सूचना के अभाव में काम चलाऊ निष्कर्ष

A tentative conclusion in absence of information

तर्क को काम करने के लिए सही सूचना चाहिए। विवेक थोड़ा ज्यादा व्यापक और गहरे स्तर पर सार्थक नतीजों तक पहुँचने की कोशिश कर सकता है। उस में अपनी पुरानी जानकारी, मानव-स्वभाव के बारे में हमारी मान्यताओं, और अपनी सम्पूर्ण समझ के आधार पर कुछ अंतर-दृष्टि पाने की कोशिश होती है। सही या गलत मुझे तो अभी यही लग रहा है कि दोनों पक्ष हमें मूर्ख समझ रहे हैं। दोनों अपने-अपने स्वार्थ के लिए जान-बूझ कर झूठ बोल रहे हैं।

Strict logic works only on availability of correct information. Reason, understood a little loosely, attempts to make sense at a little deeper level. It is reasonable to use our earlier information of India, Kashmir, Indian state, human nature, nature of Indian people and overall Indian politics; including robust history of lies from the BJP as well as the left leaning intellectuals. Right or wrong, I think both are taking us for fools. Both parties are motivated by their own wasted interests and are telling deliberate lies.

यह बहुत खतरनाक खेल खेला जा रहा है। दोनों तरफ से। पाश की नकल करते हुए कह सकते हैं: देश के लिए सब से खतरनाक होता है नागरिकों के विश्वास का मर जाना।

Both are playing a dangerous game. To borrow from Pash: Erosion of trust in its citizens is the most dangerous thing for a nation.

******

27 सितंबर 2019

Leave a Comment » | Pratyutpann-Mati | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by rdhankar

Should children be ‘used without their informed agreement’?

September 24, 2019

[My question then is: is it right to ‘use children without their informed agreement and without their own initiative’ in the following manner:

  1. Processions for demands they do not understand?
  2. In conventions for giving lectures which they do not fully understand?
  3. In big children’s conventions for passing resolutions which are given to them by interested parties?
  4. In stone pelting?

तो फिर मेरा पूरा सवाल यह है: क्या बच्चों का उनकी ‘समझकर-सहमती और उनकी अपनी पहल के बिना’ निम्न परिस्थितियों में ‘उपयोग’ नैतिक दृष्टि से ठीक है?:

  1. उन मांगों के लिए जुलूस और विरोध प्रदर्शन में लेजाना जिन्हें वे समझते ही नहीं?
  2. सभाओं में ऐसे भाषण दिलवाना जो वे समझते नहीं?
  3. बड़ी-बड़ी बाल सभाओं में प्रस्ताव पास करवाना जो न उनकी चिंता हैं नाही जिन्हें वे समझते हैं, और न उन पर कुछ कर सकते हैं?
  4. पत्थर-बाजी में]

Rohit Dhankar

It seems yesterday a 16-year-old girl delivered a lecture to world leaders in UN summit on climate change. I listened about a minute of it and read an article on what she said. This brought back to my mind an old question which I often reflect on with considerable unease in my mind and see myself at variance with most of the opinions expressed in the media.

लगता है कल एक 16 वर्ष की लड़की ने संयुक्त राष्ट्र संघ की पर्यावरण पर सभा में दुनिया के नेताओं को भाषण दिया है। मैंने उसके भाषण का कोई एक मिनट का हिस्सा सुना और उसपर एक लेख पढ़ा। इस से मेरे दिमाग में फिर से एक पुराना सवाल उठ खड़ा हुआ जो मैं कई बार अपने आप से पूछता रहा हूँ। हमेशा इस सवाल पर विचार करना मुझे कुछ बुरा-सा लगता है, और मैं जिन नतीजों पर पहुंचता हूँ वे संचार माध्यमों में प्रसारित विचारों से बहुत अलग होते हैं।

Putting my question with clarity and explaining my unease requires some background. I believe children should get a chance of developing their intellectual abilities, empathy for human race, and moral code as freely as possible. They should become rationally autonomous, or as nearly rationally autonomous as possible for humans, without undue influences and indoctrination. They should be given the full opportunity to be able to take informed decision on what activities they want to undertake; and should be knowledgeable enough as well as morally strong enough to resist suggestions, pressures and impositions from other people.

अपने सवालों की साफ अभिव्यक्ति के लिए और मेरे मन की शंकाओं को ठीक से समझाने के लिए मुझे कुछ पृष्ठभूमि बनानी होगी। मैं ऐसा मानता हूँ कि बच्चों को उनकी बौद्धिक क्षमताओं, इन्सानों के लिए संवेदना और नैतिक दृष्टि विकसित करने के अवसर पूरी स्वतन्त्रता के साथ दिये जाने चाहियें। उन्हें बिना अनुचित दबाव और प्रभाओं के विवेकशील-स्वायत्तता के विकास के मौके मिलने चाहिएन। अर्थात मतारोपण और दबाव नहीं होने चाहियें। उन्हें जिन चीजों में वे सक्षम हो गए हैं उन में सुविचारित निर्णय के अवसर मिलने चाहियें। और इनमें बड़े निर्णयों से पहले यथेष्ट बौद्धिक समझ और नैतिक साहस विकसित होना चाहिए कि वे अपने बड़ों के दबाओं और लालच का (यदि उन्हें वे अनुचित मानते हैं या नहीं समझते हैं तो) विरोध कर सेंक।

To develop into the above-mentioned kind of person children need to make their decisions independently in spheres they are capable enough and should be protected from allurements and pressures where they stand in the danger of ‘being used for others purposes’; which is the same thing as exploitation.

इस तरह के इंसान के विकास के लिए ये जरूरी है कि बच्चे उन क्षेत्रों में स्वतंत्र निर्णय लें जिनकी उन में समझ विकसित हो गई है। और उनको ऐसे निर्णयों से सुरक्षा मिले जहां बड़ों के दबाव और लालच का खतरा हो। जहां उन्हें ‘दूसरों के उद्देश्यों के लिए उपयोग किया जाने का खतरा हो’। दूसरों के उद्देश्यों के लिए बिना समझे या बिना सहमति के उपयोग करना ही शोषण है।

I am not sure everyone agrees upon this way of thinking regarding children. But in the light of these principles it seems to me there are several activities in which children should not be pushed. I will give some examples below.

मुझे ठीक से पता नहीं है कि सब लोगों कि बच्चों के बारे में इस तरह से सोचने से सहमति है या नहीं। पर इन सिद्धांतों के प्रकाश में मुझे लगता है कई गतिविधियां हैं जिनमें बच्चों को नहीं धकेलना चाहिए। नीचे कुछ उदाहरण दिये हैं।

Long back we were discussion right to education for children (when the act was not yet passed) and few voluntary organisations decided to take out a procession demanding right to free and compulsory education for all children. Some of these voluntary organisations were running schools and therefore had hundreds of children below 14 years of age under their command, so to say. They proposed that we take the children in the procession. I was against it. My reasons were that if we do take them in the procession we will be ‘using them for our purposes without their informed consent’. Children of course will readily agree and will be happy. But I doubted if they will understand what the procession is all about. So my question is: would it be morally right to take 6-14 years old children in a procession, marching in the sun, to demand right to education for all children? My view is: NO. What do you think?

कई वर्ष पहले, जब अभी शिक्षा के बाल अधिकार का अधिनियम नहीं बना था, हम लोग मुफ्त और अनिवार्य शिक्षा के अधिकार पर बात कर रहे थे। कुछ स्वयं-सेवी संस्थाओं ने शिक्षा के अधिकार की मांग करते हुए एक जुलुस निकालने का निर्णय लिया। इन में से कुछ संस्थाएं स्कूल चलती थीं, तो 14 वर्ष तक के कई सौ बच्चे इन के निर्देशन में थे। कुछ लोगों ने कहा कि हमें बच्चों को जुलूस में ले जाना चाहिए। मुझे यह ठीक नहीं लगा। मैं इसके विरुद्ध था। मेरे एतराज यह था कि बच्चों को जुलूस में लेजाना ‘हमारे उद्देश्यों के लिए उनका उपयोग करना’ होगा, क्यों कि वे इस मुद्दे पर सुविचारित निर्णय करने के लिए आवश्यक ज्ञान और चिंतन क्षमता नहीं रखते। तो मेरा सवाल यह है कि: क्या 6-14 वर्ष के बच्चों को धूप में ऐसे जुलूस में लेजाना उचित होगा जिसमें शिक्षा के बाल अधिकार की मांग की जा रही है? मेरा उत्तर है: नहीं। आप क्या सोचते हैं?

Another example. Once I was part of an evaluation team for an organisation working for child safely and education. One of their activities was a Children’s Convention at the national level. Hundreds of children were brought to this convention from all over India. Presidents etc. were elected. And they passed several resolutions regarding betterment of the country. We read the report. The resolutions were all that the adults are concerned with and most of them were beyond children’s power of understanding and action. Again, I felt that the children were ‘used’ by adults for their own agenda. What do you think?

एक और उदाहरण: एक बार मैं एक मूल्यांकन-टीम का हिस्सा था जो बाल-सुरक्षा और शिक्षा पर काम करने वाली एक संस्था का मूल्यांकन कर रही थी। उन की एक गतिविधि राष्ट्रीय स्तर पर बच्चों की बड़ी बड़ी सभाएं करवाना था। सैकड़ों बच्चे भारत के विभिन्न हिस्सों से लाये जाते थे। अध्यक्ष आदि चुने जाते थे। देश की बेहतरी के लिए इन सभाओं में कई बड़े-बड़े प्रस्ताव पास किए गए थे। हमने इन की रिपोर्ट पढ़ी। लगभाग सभी प्रस्ताव बड़ों के सोचने के विषय थे, अधिकतर बच्चों की समझ के बाहर और उनके किसी भी तरह से कुछ कर पाने की सामर्थ्य से बाहर थे। यहाँ भी मुझे लगा वयष्क लोग बच्चों का अपने अजेंडा के लिए उन की ‘समझकर-सहमति’ के बिना उपयोग कर रहे हैं। आप क्या सोचते हैं?

There is a Nobel Laurate in our country. Once he took his 13 years old daughter to deliver a lecture in eradicating child labour in a UN convention. The lecture was appreciated all around and the press went gaga over it. The same nagging question came to my mind: does the child understand all she is saying? Is she being ‘used for someone else’s purposes’? I ask the same question about the child who spoke yesterday in UN Convention on environment. What do you think?

हमारे देश में एक नोबल-पुरस्कार से सम्मानित व्यक्ति हैं। एक बार वे अपनी 13 वर्ष की बेटी को संयुक्त राष्ट्र के सम्मेलन में बाल-मजदूरी खत्म करने पर भाषण देने ले गए। भाषण की मीडिया में बहुत सराहना हुई। यही परेशान करने वाला सवाल तब भी मेरे मन में उठा। कि क्या यह बच्ची जो भाषण दे रही है उसके पीछे के तर्क और उसके निहितार्थ समझती है? क्या इसे ‘बिना समझकर-सहमति’ के किसी और के द्वारा उपयोग किया जा रहा है? कल जिस बच्ची ने संयुक्त राष्ट्र संघ में भाषण दिया उसके बारे में भी मैं यही सवाल पूछता हूँ। आप का क्या मत है?

(By the way, in the short clip I heard, this child yesterday was also speaking with a certain kind of vehemence, aggression and arrogance that did not seem to be coming from her own self. And if it did, I am sorry to say, she needs some serene and sane adults around her to learn from.)

(कुछ विषयांतर के साथ, जो थोड़ा सा भाषण मेंने कल का सुना उसमें तो वह बच्ची बहुत ही ऊग्र, आक्रामक और घमंडी तरीके से बोल रही है। मुझे नहीं लगा की ये उसके अपने भाव थे। और यदि थे तो, मुझे दुख के साथ कहना पड़ रहा है, उसे अपने आस-पास कुछ शांत और समझदार लोगों की जरूरत है, जिन से वह सीख सके।)

A fourth example: many children get hurt in Kashmir unrest, with palates or tear gas etc. It is sad and condemnable that young children suffer this fate. Before Kashmir, and may be even now, stone pelting by children was very common in Palestine. I always felt sad and sometime angry with the security forces for the suffering caused to children in stone pelting incidents. But I also think that the children were ‘being used as cannon fodder’ by their elders who are leading the unrest in Kashmir and Palestine. This is gross abuse of child rights on their elders’ part. What do you think?

चौथा उदाहरण: कई बच्चे कश्मीर में पलेट्स या आंसुगस के गोलों से घायल हो जाते हैं। यह दुखद है और निंदा करने लायक है। कश्मीर से पहले, शायद अब भी, बच्चों से पत्थर-बाजी करवाना फिलिस्तीन में बहुत होता था। यह सदा ही दुखद और कई बार बहुत गुस्सा दिलाने वाली चीज होती है कि इस तरह की पत्थर-बाजी की घटनाओं में बच्चे घायल होते हैं। लेकिन मुझे यह भी लगता है कि पत्थर-बाजी में बच्चों को उनके ही मातापिता और बड़े ‘युद्धबली’ के रूप में ‘उपयोग’ कर रहे हैं। ये फिलिस्तीन और कश्मीर में होता रहा है। यहाँ उन्हीं के बड़े बच्चों के अधिकारों का घोर हनन कर रहे होते हैं। आप क्या सोचते हैं?

My question then is: is it right to ‘use children without their informed agreement and without their own initiative’ in the following manner:

  1. Processions for demands they do not understand?
  2. In conventions for giving lectures which they do not fully understand?
  3. In big children’s conventions for passing resolutions which are given to them by interested parties?
  4. In stone pelting?

तो फिर मेरा पूरा सवाल यह है: क्या बच्चों का उनकी ‘समझकर-सहमती और उनकी अपनी पहल के बिना’ निम्न परिस्थितियों में ‘उपयोग’ नैतिक दृष्टि से ठीक है?:

  1. उन मांगों के लिए जुलूस और विरोध प्रदर्शन में लेजाना जिन्हें वे समझते ही नहीं?
  2. सभाओं में ऐसे भाषण दिलवाना जो वे समझते नहीं?
  3. बड़ी-बड़ी बाल सभाओं में प्रस्ताव पास करवाना जो न उनकी चिंता हैं नाही जिन्हें वे समझते हैं, और न उन पर कुछ कर सकते हैं?
  4. पत्थर-बाजी में?

********

5 Comments | Pratyutpann-Mati | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by rdhankar

कश्मीर: कुछ और मुद्दे

September 23, 2019

मेरी पिछली पोस्ट “जय हिन्द पर इतनी लफ़्फ़ाज़ी?” पर टिप्पणी के रूप में WhatsApp समूह में एक साथी ने जो लिखा उसे नीचे कुछ बिन्दुवार लिखने की और उसपर कुछ कहने की कोशिश कर रहा हूँ:

  • अपनी पोस्ट के आखिर में सनीप जी ने लिखा है “यह मेरे व्यक्तिगत विचार हैं हिमांशु कुमार की पोस्ट से जोड़कर न देखे जाएं”। अर्थात अब इसे उस लफ़्फ़ाज़ कविता से अलग करके विचार किया जा सकता है। यह अच्छी बात है।
  • “कश्मीर की समस्या राष्ट्रीयता की समस्या है इसे सोची समझी साजिश के तहत इस्लामिक समस्या बनाया गया है।” कश्मीर समस्या पर इस तरह को कोई पक्का विचार बना लेना आसान नहीं है। इस के लिए हमें काफी अध्ययन करना पड़ेगा, बहुत कुछ लिखा जा चुका है वह देखना पड़ेगा। आम तौर पर यह काम समाज में कुछ विशेषज्ञों का होता है। हमारी समस्या वर्तमान में यह हो गई है की कोई भी निरपेक्ष विशेषज्ञ नहीं बचा। सब धड़े बंद हो कर अपना ही पक्ष रखते हैं। मैं इस विषय पर विशेषज्ञ नहीं हूँ। फिर भी आम नागरिक की दृष्टि से कुछ पढ़ता रहा हूँ, और बहुत कुछ पढ़ रहा हूँ। यहाँ सारे संदर्भ देने के लिए समय नहीं है, पर कोई बहुत गंभीरता से बात करना चाहे तो दे सकता हूँ, जरूरत पड़ने पर। (१) आजादी के समय कश्मीर के महाराजा और शेख अब्दुल्ला दोनों ही उसको स्वतंत्र देश बनाना चाहते थे। विलय तो पाकिस्तान के आक्रमण (काबाइलियों के वेश में) के कारण उन्हें मानना पड़ा। (२) अगस्त १९५३ में अब्दुल्ला को अपदस्थ करने के संदर्भ में “Kashmir Conspiracy Case” को ठीक से समझना पड़ेगा। मैं इसपर भरोसेमंद सामाग्री ढूंढ रहा हूँ। अभी तक जो कुछ मिला है उसके आधार पर लगता है कि निर्णय नेहरू ने लिया था, निर्णय से पहले नेहरू को अब्दुल्ला के भाषण और कुछ पत्राचार दिखाया गया था। नेहरू को इस से बड़ा झटका लगा, और उनके मन में ये अब्दुल्ला के पाकिस्तान से सम्बन्धों के, स्वतंत्र देश बनाने के और इस में इस्लाम के उपयोग के प्रमाण बन गए। मेरी समझ के अनुसार नहरु का निष्कर्ष ठीक था। (३) कश्मीर षड्यंत्र केस में बेगम अब्दुल्ला और उनके साथियों पर पाकिस्तान से घन और अन्य संसाधन, यहाँ तक की विष्फोटक सामाग्री प्राप्त करने के भी आरोप लगे थे। (४) कश्मीर षड्यंत्र केस का कोर्ट में फैसला नहीं हो सका, क्यों की भारत सरकार और अब्दुल्ला के बीच समझौता हो गया, नेहरू की कश्मीर समस्या हल करने की इच्छा के कारण। इस  में हज़रतबल मस्जिद से मुहम्मद के बाल के गायब होने और फिर प्राप्त हो जाने की घटना का भी योगदान रहा।

ये सब इस लिए लिखा की बताया जा सके की ‘राष्ट्रीयता’ की समस्या को हल करने के लिए पाकिस्तान—इस्लाम के आधार पर बने देश–और इस्लामिक भावना की खुली मदद ली जारही थी। और फिर आगे चल कर तो अब यह समस्या इस्लामिक राज स्थापित करने की समस्या है ही।

इस पर भी ध्यान देने की जरूरत है की दुनियाभर में कोई भी राजनैतिक समस्या जहां मुसलमान बहुतायत में हों वह बहुत जल्दी धर्म की समस्या क्यों बन जाती है? यह लोगों को (आप को भी) एक सांप्रदायिक वक्तव्य लगेगा। पर इसके विरुद्ध पर्याप्त संख्या में उदाहरण मिलने पर मैं इस विचार को त्यागदूंगा।

आपने लिखा है कि इसे इस्लामिक समस्या बनदिया गया। यह भी सवाल है की किसने बनाया? कश्मीरियों ने खुद? भारत सरकार ने? काँग्रेस पार्टी ने? संघ परिवार ने? बीजेपी ने? किसने? ऐसे मुद्दों पर खुल कर बात करने की जरूरत है। सिर्फ संकेतों से काम नहीं चल सकता.

  • “जहां तक खून खराबे की बात है उसके बारे में अभी से हम कुछ नहीं कह सकते हैं यह तो तभी पता चलेगा जब पूर्णत: कर्फ्यू हटा लिया जाएगा।” यह ठीक है। मैंने अपनी पिछली पोस्ट में खून-खराबे को रोकने के लिए सेना की बात सिर्फ इस लिए की थी क्योंकि कहा गया कि सेना आदेश मानने से इंकार क्यों नहीं करती।
  • “आखिर यह अधिकार पूर्णत: कश्मीरीयों को है कि वो अलग होना चाहते हैं, भारत के साथ आना चाहते हैं या पाकिस्तान के साथ जाना चाहते हैं। इसके लिए सरकार को जनमत संग्रह करवाना चाहिए।” माफी चाहते हुये भी मुझे लखना पड़ेगा कि यह विचार बहुत चीजों को अनदेखा करता है। किसी भी प्रदेश की जनता का अलग होने का अधिकार न तो अंतरराष्ट्रीय कानून में अबाध अधिकार है न ही नैतिक दृष्टि से इसे सदा समर्थित किया जा सकता है। इस पर मैंने अपने एक पुराने ब्लॉग “Kashmir: Illegal occupation by India?” में लिखा है। पूरा पढ़ने के लिए यहाँ क्लिक करें। इस पोस्ट में सिर्फ इतना ही लिखुंगा कि (१) देश जब मर्जी हो तब अलग होने के सिद्धान्त पर नहीं चल सकते। (२) अलग होने में वहाँ बचे अल्पसंख्यक समुदायों के हितो की रक्षा का जो वचन भारत राष्ट्र ने दिया था उसका क्या होगा? कश्मीरियों ने अपने यहाँ अल्पसंख्यकों से बहुत बुरा व्यवहार किया है। और पाकिस्तान भी करता है। वे पाकिस्तान में मिले तो उनका क्या होगा? (३) इस्लाम के आधार पर एक विभाजन १९४७ में हो चुका है। इतना जल्दी दूसरा विभाजन बाकी देश की क्या गत बनाएगा?
  • “जबकि यह सर्वविदित है कि 1948 में गुजरात की जूनागढ़ रियासत के लिए जनमत संग्रह करवाया गया था।” फिर से माफी चाहते हुये, ये भ्रामक या अधूरी जानकारी पर आधारित है। मेरे ऊपर संदर्भित ब्लॉग में विस्तार से देखें। यहाँ इतना ही कि (१) कश्मीर में जनमत-संग्रह के एकाधिक प्रस्ताव संयुक्त राष्ट्र संघ में पास हुए हैं। जनमत संग्रह की पहली शर्त यह थी कि पाकिस्तान अपनी सारी फौज और सभी नागरिकों को वहाँ से पहले हटाये। (२) भारत की सेना कानून व्यवस्था के लिए न्यूनतम आवश्यकता के अनुसार वहाँ रहे। (३) तब संयुक्त राष्ट्र संघ की देख-रेख में जनमत संग्रह हो। पहली शर्त कभी पूरी नहीं हुई। जूनागढ़ में ये सब उलझाने नहीं थी।
  • “आज के दौर में हम सेना की उपस्थिति को तो नहीं नकार सकते लेकिन सेना को विशेषाधिकारों से लैश करना बिल्कुल गलत है।” कौनसे विशेषाधिकार? उनकी स्पष्ट अभिव्यक्ति के बिना गोलमोल भाषा में बात करने से कुछ नतीजा नहीं निकलेगा। और इसमें कश्मीर में पाकिस्तान से आने वाले, पाकिस्तान में प्रशिक्षित आतंककारियों को भी नजर में रखना पड़ेगा।
  • “मैं पूछना चाहता हूँ छत्तीसगढ़ के जंगलों में सेना क्या कर रही है ? माओवादीयों के नाम पर आदिवासियों को अपने घरों से, जंगलों से उजाड़ा जा रहा है ताकि अड़ानी, अंबानी जैसे धन्ना सेठ प्राकृतिक संसाधनों को लूट सकें और यह सब सेना के माध्यम से करवाया जा रहा है।” आप पूछना चाहते हैं यह तो आप का हक़ है, पर यह इस जगह पर बहुत बड़ा विषयांतर है। इस पर बात अलग से होनी चाहिए। आदिवासियों के साथ भारत देश में अन्याय हुआ है इस से इंकार नहीं किया जा सकता। पर माओवादी आदिवासियों का भला कर रहे हैं इस को भी जाँचना होगा। साथ ही नक्षलवाद के इतिहास में भी वहाँ से जाना पड़ेगा जब चारु मजूमदार चीन से क्रांति (या आतंकवाद का?) प्रशिक्षण ले कर आए थे और माओवादी माओ को अपना चैर-मैन घोषित करते थे (आज किसे घोषित करते हैं अपना चैर-मैन, मैन नहीं जनता)। जैसा मैंने ऊपर कहा, अलग और लंबा विषय है।

******

२३ सितंबर २०१९

2 Comments | Pratyutpann-Mati | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by rdhankar

जय हिन्द पर इतनी लफ्फाजी?

September 20, 2019

आम तौर पर इस तरह की लफ्फाजी और अतार्किक भाषणों पर कुछ नहीं कहना चाहिए। पर एक मित्र ने मुझे सोचने समझने वाले लोगों के एक समूह में शामिल कर लिया। जब इस तरह की चीज को वहाँ भी सराहना मिलते देखा तो लगा दूसरे पक्ष की बात भी करनी चाहिए। दूसरा कारण यह कि, मेरे मन में बहुत दिन से है कि यदि कुछ विचारों को स्पष्ट रूप से गलत और जवाब के लायक न समझ कर छोड़ देते हैं तो उन्हें सही मान लिया जाता है बहुत लोगों द्वारा। और वे अबाध प्रचारित होते रहते हैं। बस इसी लिए नीचे कुछ लिखा है।

… … …
पूरा पढ़ने के लिए क्लिक करें

Jai hind par itanii laffaji

Leave a Comment » | Pratyutpann-Mati | Tagged: | Permalink
Posted by rdhankar

Communal Issues Threatening Indian Democracy

September 16, 2019

Rohit Dhankar

If one goes by news paper reports the Indian economy is performing the worst in last many years. GDP (whatever it might be!) growth is at the lowest in perhaps a decade, jobs are being lost, business is slumping down, and all indicators that matter are showing the worst performance. Health and education systems are in bad shape and no sign of improvement are anywhere in the sight. The communal rift is very high. In general, the country is doing badly almost in every sphere of public life.

And still there are reports that Modi’s popularity is not coming down. Personally, I do not believe that the PM’s popularity is not coming down. It seems to me that the impact of economic slowdown will take little more time for the public to realise what is happening. But there is also another factor that is obscuring the problem and confusing the people. The belief that human beings and nations live by bread only and governed by economic concerns alone is completely wrong. Humans, are creatures of wants and not merely of needs; they are creatures of imagined desirabilities, aspirations, dreams and what they see as right and wrong. In other words, they are governed by ideologies as much as by material needs. Often, I feel humans actually measure even their material conditions through ideological prisms. Ideas are as important to them as materials.

Currently, it seems the imagination of Indian masses is captured by some ideas and issues which are making them oblivious to the nation’s material conditions, though temporarily. Materiality will finally hit them in near future, and then they will have to re-evaluate their ideological desires. In this context I will share my take on some of the issues and ideas which are playing on the minds of the people today.

These are views of a non-expert Indian citizen, therefore, are from common sense point of view rather than being expertly churned political positions and theories. ‘Non-expert’ views may sometimes be closer to the public opinion and may also be more likely to be wrong! So, why such views deserve engagement? Well, a said above,  because they are likely to be closer to the public opinion, and therefore, deserve addressing (not necessarily agreement) even if wrong.

These issues stop people from paying attention to development agenda and more serious economic and peoples’ empowerment issues like injustice, inequality, curbs on freedoms, and poor state of education, health and availability of minimal facilities to citizens. Addressing these issues should function as removal of irritants and public gaze might be drawn to real issues in the country.

The six topmost communal ideas that need to be addressed and challenged if found wrong are listed below with very brief introduction or elaboration on each.

  1. The Ram Mandir-Babri Mosque

Currently the issue is under judicial scrutiny in our highest court. I do hope what I am writing here is in no way a disrespect to the judicial process of the country.

We adopted a secular democratic constitution on 26th January 1950. As an Indian citizen I believe we said good-by to bigoted practices of demolishing, harming, encroaching or converting places of worship of any religion. History cannot be undone; all you can do with it is understand it and take lessons from it. By accepting a secular democratic constitution, the Indian state also guaranteed protection of places of all religions in the country. On the day when we adopted the constitution, there was standing a mosque at the now disputed place. Therefore, the Indian state was (and is) duty bound to protect the status of that building as a mosque. It failed in that duty. Now it should restore the position we inherited on that day.

From the moral and constitutional point of view, it does not matter whether there was a temple, Rama Temple or whatever at that place before the mosque was built. It does not matter whether the temple, or whatever there was, was destroyed or not. All that matters is that we are out of that barbaric era and do not adopt the policy of using equally barbaric policies of destroying and/or converting religious places.

There are many mosques in India which stand testimony to barbaric policies and bigoted mind set of past Muslim rulers of India, we can not undo that now by the same methods. We are a constitutional and civilised nation, and are interested in knowing our history but are not interested in taking revenge or forcibly recreating the original religious places by removing what is there today.

Therefore, the land for Babri Mosque should be given to responsible Muslim representative body and the mosque should be re-built there with the money recovered from the Hindu organisations responsible for demolishing it.

Historical truth, however, is important. Therefore, it should be thoroughly investigated by whatever means and methods available, to ascertain if there was a template at the place of Babri mosque. And that should be known to all. And that brings us to the second irritant in the minds of many in the majority community.

  • Biased reading of Indian history

Harmony can never be achieved on the basis of falsehoods. Finely woven theories written in claver language do not necessarily make credible narratives. It is true that we can never know the past as ‘it actually happened’, but all narratives built around the available historical material do not equally approximate the ‘truth’.

Exonerating the ideology of Islam and Muslim kings from temple destruction and oppression against Hindus will not help build harmony. The atrocities visited upon them will only rankle in the public memory. The real way would be to distance ourselves from that era and those historical actors and stop blaming present day people for acts of their ancestors. Islam as an ideology and Muslim kings did perpetrate atrocities on Hindus including forced conversions, but Muslims of today are not responsible for that.

The dominant stance of history writing in India in the past about 60 years (more?) has been to hide and whitewash the atrocities perpetrated on the inhabitants of this land before Muslims armies conquered it. The spacious theories of ‘people living here did not have a consciousness of being a single community’, ‘they saw themselves in terms of panths and castes only’, ‘only those temples were destroyed which were playing politics’, ‘Hindu kings also destroyed Hindu temples’, and so on, do not adequately explain the hundreds temples destroyed, volumes written by court historians of Muslim kings, scars on the public memory and differentiated taxations on Hindus and Muslims living under Muslim kings. One can go into details of all this if one likes, but complete whitewashing will not work.

The atrocities of higher castes on shudras and lower in the Hindu social order, also, cannot be explained away by siting nice sounding quotations from Hindu shastras. The facts of atrocious, unjust and extremely oppressive social order Hindus created have to be admitted and has to be undone. This again is an issue of trying to whitewash other sins in the Indian history, this time by the other side.

Similarly, exonerating Islam and Muslims of all communalism during the freedom movement and after independence will not work. We need a more objective analysis which gives equal weightage to equal evidence which impartially states communalism enflamed by Hindus as well as Muslims.

The historian who tries to whitewash the history of Muslim kings and role of Muslim communalism during freedom struggle loses credibility to counter stupid claims like plastic surgery, stem-cell research and aeroplanes in ancient India. Even when these claims are obviously false and unsupported by any evidence. Therefore, we need a more robustly argued and more fairly interpreted historical narratives which stand their ground in terms of evidence and favour none.   

  • Cow protection

Cow protection and beef ban has become the biggest source of poison in the society. India should abandon the idea of cow protection and remove ban in beef eating in all states. If some Hindus don’t want to eat beef, it is their freedom not to, is some other people want to eat beef it is choice to make. No one has the right to dictate what others should eat or not eat. It does not matter whether beef was eaten by Hindus historically or not. It is completely irrelevant.

However, public display of cow slaughter should be banned. Freedom of religious practices does not mean public display of all those practices. Actually, public display of all cruelty to animals should be banned and dealt with stringent punishment.

The so-called economic reasons for cow protection are no longer valid. Worship of cow by some sections of Hindu society is their private matter. No one is stopping them from continuing their token worship of offering a roti to cows. But they have no right to dictate others to treat cow in the same manner. Therefore, eating beef and production of cow meet should be allowed exactly as production of goat meet is allowed. If some misguided Hindus resist it, they should be dealt with sternly and all state might should be used to curb any unrest they create.

  • Uniform civil code

Democracy is premised on the assumptions (i) that humans can learn to decide for themselves the kind of life they want to lead, (ii) that they can make efforts to realise the kind of life they choose, and (iii) that they can learn to bear the responsibilities of their choices and actions. Therefore, (vi) they should be given the maximum scope to decide for themselves. This leads to democratic values like freedom, equality, justice, fraternity, etc. The fundamental rights that emerge in this discourse are rights guaranteed for the individuals and not for the communities.

As a result, any custom or religious injections that are imposed by the communities, and which encroach upon fundamental rights of persons (as individuals) are necessarily unacceptable in a democracy. Which means that all citizens in a democratic country are to be governed by the same laws. A democracy can not afford different laws for different sections of people. Therefore, uniform civil code is a necessary condition for a democracy to function properly.

However, if some people want to live life according to their community codes, democratic state cannot stop them voluntarily surrendering some (not all, for example right to life cannot be surrendered) of their fundamental rights to the community structures. But the state can not recognise any alternative legal systems.

That leads to the conclusion that there can be no place for personal civil codes be they Hindu, Muslim and any other. No community, including Muslims, has the right to be adamant regarding personal civil code. No state within a state can be allowed. So, uniform civil code should be adopted by the country even if some adamant people continue to oppose it.

  • Religious Conversions

India is a secular democracy which gives every citizen the right to practice and propagate one’s religion. Therefore, freedom to change religion has to be protected, even if Hindus don’t like it. If they feel threated by conversions for genuine change of faith by an individual, they should strengthen their on social fabric and religious education. Blaming others will not do.

But conversion also has issues. Whether we accept it or not there are many conversions happening due to material allurements. And also, various kinds of pressures. Such conversions should definitely be stopped. In the process of conversion denigration and insulting remarks for religions and publication of false interpretations and deliberate lies are order of the day. Such practices have to be curbed.

At a different level, we should also recognise the violence inherent in attempts to convert others. Conversion is an act of cultural and social uprooting, and much of what goes in the name of social service when directed at conversions becomes an act of bigotry. However, it is constitutionally allowed, therefore, has to be protected. The zeal of Abrahamic religions to convert the whole world has shed much blood through out the world, and will be a continued source of tension in India for a long time. The state should make sure that there is no hindrance in changing one’s faith for genuine reasons and there are no pressure and allurements involved.

  • Freedom of speech

Indian constitution guarantees “liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship”. I am interpreting the ‘expression’ part as freedom to speak one’s mind, ‘freedom of speech’. We hear every day that the government is curbing freedom of speech, this claim is made in connection with intolerance of criticism of the government, BJP, RSS, and PM Modi. However, the loud proclamations of this statement itself and many other much harsher on the government and the PM give a lie to such claims. At the same time, there are TV channels which do not allow the counter view to be articulated at all, and I am sure that is because of the pressure from the government. That is because the media houses come under pressure from the government. Undoubtedly, here the government is guilty.

There are also channels which speak freely against the government and nothing more than BJP people not grating interviews and denying participation in debates on such channels is done to them. Denying interviews and participation is certainly a way of marginalization of these channels and journalists, and in such cases the government is guilty. Thus, as far as the criticism of the government is concerned a systemic marginalization of the critics is being practiced. This has to be resisted.

Since public opinion regarding the five issues I listed above cannot be formed rationally without complete freedom of speech, it is a very important issue for our democracy and secularism today. And citizens can certainly defeat any curbs by the government in the era of social media.

But there are other ways of curbing freedom of speech other than by the government, and to my mind they also do equal harm. One of these ways is concocted public outrage and the government’s failure to protect citizens’ right to freedom of speech. Religion today is not insignificant in India and in my view the greatest danger to our democracy and secularism comes from religion. If one criticizes Hindu practices and Hindu shastras then immediately there is a feigned outrage against such a persona and there might be threats form anti-social elements. If one questions Mohammad and Quran then there are immediate threats of beheading from another set of anti-socials. The Muslim threats are much louder, more frequent and brought to the violent protest on the road much more frequently than the Hindu threats. The state fails to protect the concerned citizens in both cases.

Unless we create an atmosphere of free and frank discussions on religions, unless we can ask harsh questions regarding Hindu, Muslim and Christian practices in this country, we will not be able to stop communal poison in the country. We have to discuss and critique all religious figures be that Rama, Krishna, Muhammad, Christ or Buddha with equal sharpness; with due respect for all believers but no reverence for the religious figures.

Another big threat to open society and cogent debates/discussions is the overbearing political correctness. Political correctness is a form of censorship to protect some lies, and is more dangerous that a direct and proper lie; because it can not be countered. If we want to save democracy and secularism, we have to drop political correctness completely and ask hard questions of all ideologies including religions.

It seems we have to short out these and other such issues before the genuine issues of development and social justice can gain public attention. ******

2 Comments | Pratyutpann-Mati | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by rdhankar

Two inscriptions: what do they say?

September 4, 2019

I am sharing below two inscriptions known as Veraval Inscriptions. Both are about the land transaction between some residents of Somanatha Patan (the town where Somanatha temple is located) and a Persian ship-owner named Nur-ud’din. One inscription is in Sanskrit and the other in Arabic. It seems to me in addition to the information about legal transaction regarding the land to build a Mosque on, these documents also say something about the socio-cultural relationship between the two communities, Hindus and Muslims; and their feelings towards each other.

Those who are interested in history and social relationships between communities in India should read the inscriptions carefully. I would be very grateful to people who share their views on the following two questions:

  1. On the basis of these two inscriptions only, and without generalising at all, what can you say about the social relationship between the two parties mentioned in these inscriptions?
  2. What can you say about the feelings of these two parties towards each other and their customs?  

I am sharing the typed versions of the inscriptions below. I have original pages in pdf but they are difficult to read, therefore, got them retyped as they are without any kind of changes.

A grant of Arjundeva of Gujarat, dated 1264 A.D.

Original Sanskrit. Found at Harsata Devi temple at Veraval. Legal document of land transactions for a Mosque at Somanatha Pattan.

TRANSLATION

Om. Om. Adoration to holy Visvanatha! Adoration to thee who art the Lord of the Universe, adoration to thee whose form is the universe, adoration to thee whose form is the void, adoration to thee who art invisible and invisible (at the same time)!

In the year 662 of the Prophet Muhammad who is the teacher of the sailors living near (the temple of) holy Visvanatha, and in the year 1320 of the illustrious king Vikrama, and in the year 945 of famous Vallabhi, and in the year 151 of the illustrious Simha, on Sunday the 13th day of the dark half of Ashadha, today (and) here;–during the prosperous, happy, and victorious reign of the illustrious Arjunadeva, the king of great kings, the wheelking [chakravarti] of the illustrious Chaulukya (race), (who is) a thorn in the heart of the hostile king Nihsankamalla, who acquired great majesty (in consequence of) a boon (granted by) the holy Husband of Umaa, the supreme lord, the supreme ruler, who is adorned  by the whole line of kings (his ancestors), and who resides in famous Anahillapataka, (and) while the prime minister Ranaka Sri-Maladeva who lives devoted to his (Arjundeva’s) lotus-feet was conducting all the business of the seal, such as the drawing-up of documents, at this period; –with the consent of the Panchakula here in the town of Sri Somanathadeva, such as Mahan[ta] Sri-Abhayasha, the servant (pri[Parsvika]) of Mahattara Gandasri-Paravirbhadra, the great teacher of the Pasupatas, the great scholar, an incarnation of the god of Justice, and while on the shore of the Hurmuz coast the reign was conducted by the Amir Sri-Ruknu’d-din;–the shipowner Nuru’d-din Piroz, son of the shipowner Khoja Abu Ibrahim, a native of Hurmuz, who had come for some business to the town of Sri-Somanathadeva, bought a piece of land situated in the Sikottari Mahayanapali outside the town of Sri-Somanathadeva, together with the nine treasures, to do with it what he would wish and list, by the manner of touching, in the presence of all the great menliving in the Mahayana adjoining the Droni of Sri-Somanathadeva, (viz.) the householder (?) and great man Thakkura Sri-Palugideva, the great man Ranaka Sri-Somesvaradeva, the great man Thakkura Sri-Ramadeva, the great man Thakkura Sri-Bhimasiha, the great man Raja[kula] Sri-Chhada, etc., and in the presence of all (Musalman) congregations, fromthe great man Raja[kula] Sri-Chhada, son of Raja[kula] Sri-Nanasiha, etc.

Then, from the desire that bis glory should last as long as moon and sun endure, (and) for the sake of his salvation, the ship-owner Piroz, who was excessively religious in accordance with the code of his religion (the Kuran) (and) who, by his alliance with the great man Raja[kula J Sri-Chhada, had become bis associate in (this) meritorious work,caused a place of worship ( called) a Masjid facing the east to be erected on the abovementioned piece of land.

For the maintenance ofthis place of worship (called) Masjid, for the lamps, oil, and water (required for) the daily worship, and for (the appointment of) a preceptor, a crier to prayers, and a monthly reader (of the Kuran), and for the payment of the expenses of the particular religious festivals of Baratirabikhatamarati according to the custom of the sailors, and for the annual white-washing and repairs of rents and defects, (confirming the gift) by (a libation of ) water, the ship-owner Piroz gave the following (source of income).

(Firstly,) the whole Pallarj,ika belonging to (the temple of) Sri-Baulesvara in the centre of the town of Sri-Somanathadeva, which he had bought from Sri-Paratripurantaka, the superior (of the convent) of Sri-Navaghanesvara, and from Vinayakabhattaraka, Pararatanesvara, and others. (This Palladika is) filled with houses, which are turned in various directions and covered with grass, thatch, and Cheluka . On its northern side stands a convent of two stories; west of it in the middle (lies) the property of the carpenter (sutra[dhadra]) Kanhaia; on the eastern side (stands) a single house outside; on the boundaries of all four (sides) it is enclosed by a continuous wall, and it has (a door for) ingress and egress towards the road on the northern side. (Thus) it is defined by its four fixed boundaries, and its circuit is known.

(Secondly,) the Danapala belonging to 1 (one) oil-mill.

(Thirdly,) two shops in front of this Masjid, which he had bought by (the manner of) touching from Kilhanadeva, son of the householder (and great man) Nirmalyachhadasodhala,  and from Lunasihadharanimasuma, son of Thakkura Sohana, and from Ranaka Asadhara, who resides in Balyarthakarena, and from others.

From this source of income, this place of worship (called) a Masjid, belonging to the ship-owner Piroz is to be kept up and maintained, and the rents and defects have to be repaired, as long as moon, planets, and stars endure, for the salvation of the ship-owner Piroz.

All the surplus that remains, while from this source of income this place of worship is maintained and kept up, and the expenses on the days of the particular festivals are paid, is to be sent to the holy district of Makka and Madina.

The source of income of this place of worship is for ever to be guarded, and this place of worship to be maintained by all the following congregations together: the congregation of the ship-owners … and the congregation of all the wharf-peoplewho are devoted to the Martyr (Ali) together with their preacher, and the congregation of the (Persian) artisans, and the congregation of the Musalmans among the landholders, and others.

The donor, he who causes (the donation to be made), (and) those who protect (the charity) according to the law, all these will certainly enter heaven for their good deeds.

Whosoever plunders or causes to be plundered this place of worship and this source of income, that bad man will be defiled by (a guilt as heavy as) the guilt of the five mortal sins and go to hell.

******

Inscription, dated 1264 A.D., From Prabhas Patan

Original in Arabic. About land transactions for a Mosque at Prabhas Patan. Found at Quadi’s Mosque

TRANSLATION

  1. Allah the Exalted may assign this (reward) to one who builds a house in the path of Allah …………….. [This auspicious mosque was build]
  2. on the twenty-seventh of the month of Ramadan, year [sixty-two]
  3. and six hundred from migration of the Prophet (23rd July 1264 A.D.) in the reign of the just Sultan and [the generous king]
  4. Abu’l-Fakhr (lit., father of pride), Ruknu’d-Dunyd wa’d-Din (lit., pillar of State and Religion), Mu’izzu’l-Islam wa’l-Muslimin (lit., source of glory for Islam and the Muslims), shadow of Allah in (the lands),
  5. one who is victorious against the enemies, (divinely) supported prince, Abi’n-Nusrat (lit., father of victory), Mahmud, son of Ahmad, may Allah perpetuate his…….
  6. and may his affair and prestige be high, in the city of Somnat (i.e. Somnath). May God make it one of the cities of Islam and [banish ?]
  7. infidelity and idols, and during the time of its ruler Gand Mahattrapadam? and his advisor with correct and beneficial judgment, (namely?) Mehta….;
  8. and one who made efforts for this meritorious deed and allowed it, is the greatest of them after the afore-mentioned ruler, (namely) Jada (i.e. Chhada) Raw[at].
  9. son of Rawat Nansih, along with their other prominent persons, one of whom is Bailak Deva (i.e. Palugideva), the second, Bhimsih Takur, the third,
  10. Somesar (Someshwar) Dev and the fourth, Ram Dev, All of whom unanimously agreed to the construction of this magnificent great mosque.
  11. for the merit of the great chief (sadr), the fortunate, the martyr, Najmu’l-Haq wa’d-Din (lit., star of Truth and Religion), the chief protector of Islam.
  12. and the Muslims, father of kings and monarchs. prince among the great men of the age, proof among the accomplished of the time, king of the kings of covenant
  13. and fulfilment, master of generosity and liberality, Abu Ibrahim, son of Muhammad al-Iraqi, may Allah illuminate his grave and make his (final resting) place and bed agreeable to him,
  14. in obedience to the order of our Lord? The master of this good deed is the great and the respected chief (sadr), prince among sea-men, king of the kings of
  15. merchants, Nuru’d-Daulat wa’d-Din (lit., light of the State and Religion), son of Islam and Muslims, father of kings and monarchs, shelter of the great
  16. and the prominent, pride of the age, Firuz, son of Abu Ibrahim al-Iraqi, may Allah perpetuate his glory; he built and endowed
  17. for the above-mentioned mosque which is celebrated throughout the universe…….. for the sake of
  18. Allah, the Generous and by way of seeking the pleasure of the Great Lord….. for the building of this great mosque.
  19. so that (its) building may serve as a proof of faith in the Manifest Scripture and in utmost accordance with the injunction of the Discrimination between Truth and Falsehood (i.e. the Qur’an) where, for example, (it is) said, ‘Only he shall visit the mosques
  20. of Allah, who believes in Allah and in the Final Day (i.e. day of Judgment), establishes prayers, gives alms and fears none but Allah; so (as for these)
  21. they would be among the followers of the right course’, (and) for the benefit of the Imam (i.e. leader of prayers) and its Mu’adhdhin (i.e. caller to prayers); and the balance (of the amount, after the obligations are discharged
  22. will be sent to Mecca, may Allah guard it and the city of the Apostle of Allah (i.e. Madina), may Allah’s salutations be on him, so that (the said amount) be spent there
  23. in proper places. As for those who will seek to nullify this good deed or try to defeat its purpose either by word or deed,
  24. or intention or demonstration, Allah the Exalted will know it from the sanctity of his heart and the weakness of his belief, and he will be liable to the curse of Allah.
  25. and (also), the curse of the cursers, of the angels, of the people and, in short, of everybody, will be on him. ‘Then whoever alters it after he has heard of it
  26. the sin of it then is only upon those who alter it; surely, Allah is Hearing and Knowing’ and Relenting and Merciful’.
  27. … the Exalted Allah, as He says in his Mighty Invincible Book (i.e. the Qur’an), Verily, Allah [and the angels
  28. send their blessings on the Prophet]. And salutations of Allah be on our chief Muhammad and on his noble descendants.

******

Leave a Comment » | Pratyutpann-Mati | Tagged: | Permalink
Posted by rdhankar

Imran Khan: Delusion or stupidity?

September 1, 2019

Rohit Dhankar

New York Times published an article supposed to be written by Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan on 30th August 2019, with a long title “Imran Khan: The World Can’t Ignore Kashmir. We Are All in Danger”. The title says all that Mr. Khan wanted to say in the article. I have a few comments to make on this article.

First, Mr. Khan should hire better ghost writers. His current ghost writers do not do their homework properly. They rely on Indian liberals too much for their quotes and analysis and it is too transparent. This is not to blame Indian liberals; they live in a democracy and have all the right to criticise functioning of their political parties and the government; even the state and the nation. But their criticism is well known by now and all India and the world know the merits and demerits of their stand by now. So, by aping them Mr. Khan sounds stale and second hand.

Second, Mr. Khan’s argument that the new India is dangerous to the world is based on Modi being an RSS swayam-sevak in the past, and quotations from writings of Golwalkar. Before coming to Golwalkar’s actual quote we should not that the Indian state and government are not run according to Golwalkar’s books but by the Constitution of India which gives equal rights to all its citizens irrespective of their gender, caste, religion and creed. As Prime Minister of India Mr. Modi has sworn to uphold that constitution and has said more than once that the only book we have to run the country is our constitution. Therefore, what Golwalkar might have written does not define India. Let’s see what Mr. Modi (as Prime Minister of India, I am saying nothing about him as an individual here) has sworn to. The oath of the Prime Minister of India is:

“I, A.B., do swear in the name of God (or solemnly affirm) that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, that I will faithfully and conscientiously discharge my duties as a Minister for the Union and that I will do right to all manner of people in accordance with the Constitution and the law, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.” The allegiance here is solely to the constitution of India which is created and adopted by Indians democratically. An atheist can become PM of India and in taking oath need not mention God. The way the God is mentioned it is for the personal commitment of the oath taker, could be the God of any religion, and even that is not necessary.

Compare what Mr. Khan as the Prime Minister of Islamic Republic of Pakistan has sworn to:

“(In the name of Allah, the most Beneficent, the most Merciful.)

I,____________, do solemnly swear that I am a Muslim and believe in the Unity and Oneness of Almighty Allah, the Books of Allah, the Holy Quran being the last of them, the Prophethood of Muhammad (peace be upon him) as the last of the Prophets and that there can be no Prophet after him, the Day of Judgement, and all the requirements and teachings of the Holy Quran and Sunnah.

… …

That I will strive to preserve the Islamic Ideology which is the basis for the creation of Pakistan:

… …”.

Mr. Khan who wants to pass on his Islamic country as a democracy is sworn in the name of Allah, Prophet and Quran. No theocratic state can ever be a democracy, neither can it ever grant freedom of expression and equal rights to all its citizens. This oath can be taken only by a Muslim and upholding Islam is the primary duty here, not equal rights of all citigens.

 The preamble of Constitution of Pakistan makes it amply clear. Have a look:

  1. “Whereas sovereignty over the entire Universe belongs to Almighty Allah alone, and the authority to be exercised by the people of Pakistan within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust; …” Sovereignty is of Allah, thus his will shall be flowed. And that is expressed through the last Prophet Mohammad in Quran and Hadith.
  2. “Wherein the principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice, as enunciated by Islam, shall be fully observed;” Principles of democracy freedom etc. will be as per Islam, therefore, you cannot express doubt that that extremely reputative book called Quran which threatens humans almost in every line is given by merciful Allah. You can not say that the idea of God is a creation of human mind and no such thing actually exists. This would be blaspheme, and you will get capital punishment.
  3. “Wherein the Muslims shall be enabled to order their lives in the individual and collective spheres in accordance with the teachings and requirements of Islam as set out in the Holy Quran and Sunnah;”
  4. “Wherein adequate provision shall be made for the minorities freely to profess and practise their religions and develop their cultures; … …”. This freedom of the minorities will be within the Islamic low. Meaning Ahamadias can not call their place of worship a Mosque. Minorities can be converted to Islam but a Muslim can not be converted to any other religion. The minority girls can be kidnapped and can be forcibly converted. Muslims can say that their religion is the only true religion and all other religions are false, and their followers will go to hell. But a Christian or a Hindu has no such right, s/he will be hanged for blaspheme.
  5. “Wherein shall be guaranteed fundamental rights, including equality of status, of opportunity and before law, social, economic and political justice, and freedom of thought, expression, belief, faith, worship and association, subject to law and public morality;” Subject to law and the Law is Islamic. Therefore, a woman gets only half the property compared to her brother as share in his father’s property. She can be divorced by her husband but she herself has no such right. This is equality as per Islam.
  6. “Wherein adequate provision shall be made to safeguard the legitimate interests of minorities and backward and depressed classes; … …”. Legitimacy will be decided by Islam law, which we have hinted at above.
  7. “Conscious of our responsibility before Almighty Allah and men; … …”
  8. “Faithful to the declaration made by the Founder of Pakistan, Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, that Pakistan would be a democratic State based on Islamic principles of social justice; … …”. ‘Democratic state’ based on Islam? Can democracy be based on any theology?

This man whose nation itself is founded on discriminatory ideology and on Islamic supremacy has the temerity of lamenting in front of the world about some bigoted Hindus who want India to become a Hindu Rashtra, and are rejected by majority of Hindus themselves? We, Indians have the strength to defeat them and can be genuinely concerned about it. But what moral ground the Prime Minister of a Muslim Supremacist country has to cry foul on this? Isn’t he making a joke of himself?

He laments that India blames his bigoted Islamic country for terror and trying to get them black listed by intergovernmental Financial Action Task Force. But why shouldn’t India do that when terrorists are continuously being funded by his country and according to his own admission there are 40,000 terrorists roaming freely in his beloved Islamic country?

He shows concern for the Kashmiris but forgets that it is his Islamist country’s doctrine to use terror against India in Kashmir and putting Kashmiris at risk. The restrictions in Kashmir today are actually to save peaceful Kashmiri’s from Islamists, who want to create an Islamic state in Kashmir.

He is telling the world that India has said that no-first use nuclear doctrine may be revised if need be. But he is the one who first threatened India by painting a scenario of nuclear war in his own parliament. No responsible person has threatened nuclear war in India, but half a dozen of his ministers have threatened India of nuclear war.

Finally, let’s come to Golwalkar’s quote. “To keep up the purity of the nation and its culture, Germany shocked the world by her purging the country of Semitic races – the Jews. National pride at its highest has been manifested here. Germany has also shown how well-nigh impossible it is for races and cultures, having differences going to the root, to be assimilated into one united whole, a good lesson for us in Hindustan to learn and profit by.” The quote says “National pride”, Golwalkar as per the copy of the book I have says “Race pride”. But that is a minor, perhaps, inadvertent mistake; also, I am not sure as some other addition may have said “national pride”.

I said above that Mr. Khan should change his ghost writers. This exact quote is used by Mr. Sitaram Yechuri in Rajya Sabha and published in the Hindu (https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/national/golwalkar-drew-lessons-from-hitlers-germany/article7924161.ece#). And I am not blaming Yechuri here, like some misguided people blame Rahul Gandhi for giving ammunition to Pakistan. We have our own free debates and if Pakistan can do nothing better than aping us, that is their problem. WE can not curb our freedom of debate and expression simply because Pakistan will quote us.

However, Mr. Golwalkar is not exactly preaching ‘purging’ India of Muslims in this quote in spite of the last phrase “a good lesson for us in Hindustan to learn and profit by”. He is trying to buttress his definition of “Nation” taking examples of UK, Germany, Russia and Czechoslovakia. Though his views on the nation are completely bigoted, do not define Indian nation (which is basically a constitutional nation, granting equality to all) and are not in consonance with Hindu history and thinking. Golwalkar says “Those only are nationalist patriots, who, with the aspiration to glorify the Hindu race and Nation next to their heart, are prompted into activity and strive to achieve that goal. All others are either traitors and enemies to the National cause, or, to take a charitable view, idiots.” By this definition I am an enemy or an idiot, how ever I do consider myself a patriot and even a nationalist in a non-aggressive manner. India does not accept Golwalkar’s views.

Golwalkar’s views on how Muslims and others should live in India though grants them freedom of their religion but certainly declares them second class citizens. “From this standpoint, sanctioned by the experience of shrewd old nations [he counts UK, Germany, France, etc. in them], the foreign races in Hindusthan must either adopt the Hindu culture and language, must learn to respect and hold in reverence Hindu religion, must entertain no idea but those of the glorification of the Hindu race and culture, i.e., of the Hindu nation and must lose their separate existence to merge in the Hindu race, or may stay in the country, wholly subordinated to the Hindu Nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment -not even citizen’s rights.” Notice how similar it sounds to Constitution of Pakistan, where everything is governed by Quran and Hadith. We reject Golwalkar and Modi rules under secular Indian constitution; however, Mr. Khan’s Islamic nation follows Golwalkar to the dot, if you replace “Hinduism” with “Islam”. So, Mr. Khan, if honest can have absolutely no problems with Golwalkar.

If Mr. Khan wants further proof of similar thinking in founding ideologists of Pakistan he should look at the writings of many Muslim league leaders and speeches of Zinnah himself. I will say content by quoting the only one ideological founder here. Sir Syed Ahamad Khan, as highly respected by Mr. Khan as Golwalkar by Mr. Modi, says: “Now, suppose that all the English and the whole English army were to leave India, taking with them all their cannon and their splendid Weapons and everything, then who would be the rulers of India? Is it possible that under these circumstances two nations – the Mohammedans and the Hindus – could sit on the same throne and remain equal in

power? Most certainly not. It is necessary that one of them should conquer the other and thrust it down. To hope that both could remain equal is to desire the impossible and the inconceivable.” This is the two-nation theory that created Pakistan. He further says: “Can you tell me of any case in the world’s history in which any foreign nation after conquering another and establishing its empire over it has given representative government to the conquered people? Such a thing has never taken place. It is necessary for those who have conquered us to maintain their Empire on a strong basis … The English have conquered India and all of us along with it. And just as we [the Muslims] made the country [India] obedient and our slave, so the English have done with us.” Conquering and making obedient slave is even justified here.

India rejected this ideology, be that from Sir Syed or from Golwalkar; and that rejection happened right after the partition fuelled by the same ideology. That speaks volumes of sanity and democratic commitment of Indians.  Pakistan, on the other hand, is created precisely on this ideology and its present-day constitution accepts it.

One wonders whether Mr. Khan’s lamentation should be seen as delusional or stupid?

———

As a tail piece, just as a little curiocity, some thing interesting for leftists in Golwalkar, which they themselves will hardly quote. Golwalkar argues that the concept of national necessarily has 5 common factors: geography, race, culture, religion and language. While discussing Russia (USSR of those days) he comes up with something interesting regarding religion, worth quoting in full here. “In Russia now we have the new religion known as Socialism-and the new culture, that of the workers, evolved out of their materialistic religion. Readers, we think, will not disagree with us regarding the culture—the materialistic culture of Russia; they may, however, feel surprised at our statement that Socialism is modern Russia’s religion. But there is nothing to be surprised at. To most, religion means a set of opinions to be dogmatically followed, for the good of the individual and of the society and for the attainment of God. Here we have a religion which does not believe in God. It is a Godless religion but a religion none the less. For the Russians, their prophet is Karl Marx and his opinions are their Testament. Even in other parts of the world there have been Godless religions in the past. The Russian religion is the modern form of those ancient ones. The socialists are veritably the descendants of Virochana and Charwak.” In this Golwalkar is not alone. The last chapter in R.C. Zaehner edited ‘Concise Encyclopaedia of Living Faiths’ is Material Dialecticism.

One wonders whether this explains why USSR, China and other leftists stated thought it necessary to kill all who disagreed with them? Whether this explains why leftists do not allow others freedom of expression when they are in power?

******

Leave a Comment » | Pratyutpann-Mati | Tagged: , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by rdhankar