Assam must vote for change this time

My analysis in DailyO ahead of the Assam assembly elections.

You can read a version of the article below:    

Nearly 85 per cent of the population in Assam lives in rural areas where Satras (temples) and lands are an integral part of life and culture of the people. For a common Assamese his/her culture and identity is a defining factor.

At the national level, this land of red rivers and blue hills is crucial from strategic and trade aspects. A few days ahead of the second phase of polls here, the key question is: Why should Assamese people vote for change this time?

Today Assam is caught in a precarious situation because of the illegal migration from Bangladesh. In the last two to three decades, lakhs of illegal migrants from across the border have settled in different parts of the state.

The resultant pressure on resources and struggle for survival has lead to frequent clashes and unrest in the Assamese society.

The indigenous population no longer feels safe in its own homeland. The migrant population has either captured or bought lands of Satra (temple) and forest in last 20 years. With Satras and lands coming under this shadow, the Assamiya Asmita (pride) is also no longer safe.

The issue of illegal migrants from Bangladesh is not just endemic to the state of Assam. In fact these illegal migrants are now travelling to different parts of the country and settling down there, making it an issue of national security.

What was considered one of the most complicated border disputes in the world was resolved by the central government led by Narendra Modi through the exchange of hundreds of enclaves with Bangladesh. The border which had become extremely porous due to nationality and ownership issues was at last given a shape.

Now, as a second step the central government has promised adequate fencing and other security measures which will stop cross-border infiltration.

While BJP leaders have been categorically saying that the formation of the party’s government in Assam will mean reclaiming lands of Satra (temple) and forest, the Congress party has maintained a studied silence. Senior Congress leadership has never duly recognised the problem of illegal Bangladeshi migrants in Assam.

In the neighbouring West Bengal, chief minister Mamta Banerjee had said that no one could touch the Bangladeshi migrants and they are a part of her state now.

This is the core issue that has compelled the Assamese people to vote for change in these elections. With more than 40 seats being heavily dominated by illegal Bangladeshi migrants, this could be the last battle to save Assam. If even half of this slogan stands true, then people of Assam should vote for change this time.

Demography of Assam has changed beyond recognition in the last 15 years when Congress was in power. However, far from finding a solution to the problem, the party and its senior leaders do not even recognise it. Their policy so far has been to stay blind to the effects of migration. Even the Congress manifesto says little on the issue.

Now, illegal Bangladeshi migrants have their own political party in Assam. AIUDF, led by Badruddin Ajmal, stands for the interests of illegal Bangladeshis. The word on the street is that while the Congress does not have a formal alliance with the AIUDF but it has reached a tacit understanding with Badruddin Ajmal.

LK Advani was the first home minister of India who raised the issue of deportation of illegal Bangladeshi migrants from India. This move was vociferously criticised by the opposition parties. Apart from the BJP, no other party has raised the issue of Bangladeshi immigrants with grit and conviction.

The current chief minister Tarun Gogoi claims that there has been enormous "growth" in the last 15 years.

Recently, Sanjoy Hazarika, one of the leading intellectuals of Assam wrote that in several parts of the state, health and education parameters are poor and it has India’s worst MMR figures (Material Mortality Ratio - the number of women dying in pregnancy is 300 per 10000 deliveries).

The state also has the second worst Infant Mortality Ratio (IMR).

Peace and development in Assam will also help in the "Act East" policy of the central government. This will open new doors for trade and cultural exchange with Southeast Asian countries which have long cultural ties with India. This new route to Southeast Asia will also open new avenues of job and business for the people of Assam.

In this election, BJP has floated a mahagadhbandhan (grand alliance) in Assam which also reflects a grand social coalition of all indigenous communities. With such an alliance coming to power in the state, the present sense of fear and distrust will be mitigated.

This Assembly election will see a vote for change because for Assam it has come to signify peace, prosperity and security.

Anupam Kher is the best person to stand up against selective outrage

My article in DailyO on the intolerance debate and Anupam Kher's stand.

You can read a version of this article below:

Since the beginning of the #AwardWapsi and intolerance debate, one man has stood steadfast in opposition of the campaign terming it as a classic case of selective outrage and pseudo-intellectual approach. He thinks that the intolerance debate is being used as a ruse by a certain section of the intellectual class to justify their selective sensitivities. This man is noted actor Anupam Kher who has been working in the film industry for more than 30 years.

Accused of benefitting from a pro-establishment stand, Kher has said that he will not accept Rajya Sabha nomination or another favours from the present government. He is not a BJP man but he makes no bones about being a Narendra Modi supporter and endorses his vision of India.

The question then arises: Who does Anupam Kher represent and why does he care about leading a march on Raj Path taking on the high and mighty of the intellectual class and cultural czars of the country? Typically as a cine star whose partner (Kirron Kher) is an MP from the ruling party, don't we expect him to stay stonewalled to such debates, playing it with caution, making no enemies and keeping out of the sun hidden behind his sunglasses?

But Kher is representative of rare voices from the world of art; of those few who stand firm in disagreement with the dominant intellectual discourse. He represents opposition of the status-quo-ist intellectuals who arrogate to themselves the power to dictate whether you are 'class' or 'crass'. For decades it has been impossible to disagree with the so-called cannons of this class that portrays itself to be the torch-bearer of liberal intellectual thinking. The rules of their game are clear, if you are not with them, you are against them. And curiously, their discourse is unsullied by any dissenting voices.

The truth in fact is that there is no liberal discourse in our country but only Left-liberal and Hindi cinema is not an exception. At the time when the intellectual class should have worked on developing an "Indian Left" idea, they found it convenient to accept super-structures dominated by Classical Marxism. The essential Indianisation of Marxism or Left never happened and we created a false paradigm for our debates and discussions. The current debate is also an extension of that. The only difference being that we have a voice like Anupam Kher to represent the counter-ideas in the changed scenario.

Indian cinema today is one of the important media for popular cultural discourse. There are more voices from the world of cinema (than any other medium)that influence different issues of national importance. These include Javed Akhtar, Shabana Azmi, Mahesh Bhatt, Puja Bhatt, Mukesh Bhatt, Nandita Das and others. Now factor Anupam Kher in this list. He speaks on issues of national importance but his voice does not echo with the others. His take on issues is fresh and you often find him standing on the other side instead of comfortably snuggling in with his co-celebrities. He represents the counter-cultural narrative of the current times which is now shared by millions of youth of this country and which the out-dated intellectual class want to brand as 'intolerant' and crass.

A peek into the time of Partition provides us valuable insight into the Left leanings of the Indian film industry. That was the time when actors like Dilip Kumar and the Lahore Writers' Group became a dominating force of the "Bombay" film industry. Many from the Progressive Writers' Forum (read Communists) also joined the film industry from time to time like KA Abbas, MS Satthu and others. Like the rest of the country, the film industry too was deeply influenced by the wave of Nehruvian-Socialism. The film circuit, as a result, was dominated by Left-liberals and Congress-supporters like Nargis, Sunil Dutta, Amitabh Bachchan, Rajesh Khanna and Shah Rukh Khan. During the Emergency the cinema fraternity was asked by "Yuvraj" Sanjay Gandhi to organise musical nights and create an environment in support of Emergency. The only dissenting voice of that time was of Manoj Kumar who made patriotic films like Upkaar and Purab Aur Paschim.

The first major break in this spell came with the inclusion of Shatrughan Sinha in BJP. Before him no Hindi cine celebrity dared to take a stand opposing the Congress.

Today, Anupam Kher has broken away from the old guards and taken a nuanced ideological position on the intolerance debate. He represents a counter-cultural discourse which has the potential to give birth to a new paradigm of intellectual-cultural tradition free from old ideological shackles and representative of a de-colonized Indian mind.

If the fight is for a truly tolerant society, Anupam Kher is the true flag bearer since he represents opposition to ideological intolerance which has been rooted in the country since Independence. Let Anupam Kher lead this new step towards a paradigm shift.

Reclaiming the Glory of Sri Ram

I reviewed the book The Battle for Rama: Case of the Temple at Ayodhya by Meenakshi Jain for Organiser. You can read a version of the review below:

On September 30, 2010  the Allahabad High Court delivered its verdict on the five suits pending before it. The Court decreed that the area covered by the central dome of the disputed structure “being the deity of Bhagwan Ramjanmasthan and the birthplace of Lord Ram as per faith and belief of the Hindus,” belongs to the plaintiffs (Bhagwan Sri Ram Lalla Virajman and others; Suit 5).” (p. 140)

In an historic judgment, the Allahabad High Court  in 2010  had ruled for a three-way division of the 2.77 acre site. More recently, the Supreme Court, while hearing a plea for day-to-day hearing in the case, observed that the matter should be settled through mediation.  In popular academic circles, the issue of Ramjanmabhoomi is considered as the outcome of 150 years of communalisation; one that culminated in the demolition of the disputed structure in 1992 and turned into a rallying point for secularism. The truth however, is far from this.

In her latest book The Battle for Rama: Case of the Temple at Ayodhya, Meenakshi Jain puts on table certain facts that have been deliberately obfuscated in the debate. The writer looks at archaeological, literary and sculptural sources to get the facts straight. She also calls out the bluff of historians who are bent upon discrediting everything that strengthens the case for a temple at the site. Their contentions are many, desperate and shocking. To them Sri Ram worship is an eighteenth-nineteenth century phenomenon; Present day Ayodhya is not the Ayodhya of the ancient times, which they have located in Afghanistan, even Egypt. (p.82); Word mandira found on an inscription means dwelling house or palace and not a temple; Tulsidas attached no importance to Ayodhya as the birthplace of Sri Ram and many more. In her book, the writer has exposed the impunity with which these historians get away by committing the biggest academic faux pas of Independent India. The most recent of this came in response to the ASI findings. A planned campaign was carried out to misinform the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) that carried out excavations at the site in August 2003 as per the high court order. In its report submitted to the court on September 22, the ASI concluded that there was evidence of “…indicative remains which are distinctive features found associated with temples of north India.” (p.121)  The ASI also took into account carbon dating results and structural remains which suggested that the structure wasn’t built on virgin land and in fact the material from the pre-existing structure was used to build the structure. This set in motion a new batch of claims. Professor Irfan Habib led a group of eight archaeologists who overnight mooted the theory that the pre-existing structure was in fact another mosque or idgah. These academics were presented as experts in the court by Sunni Waqf Board. As this was for the first time that such a claim had been made, the court expressed surprise. On cross examination, one of these archaeologists, Suraj Bhan, admitted that they had given the statement simply to offset the effect of ASI findings and had no other grounds for their claims.

The writer has also exposed the fact that  except Suraj Bhan none of the other archaeologists presented as expert witnesses had done any field work. “RC Thakran professed in court that he was just a table archaeologist… D Mandal admitted that he had acquired knowledge of archaeology and had never obtained any degree or diploma in archaeology.”  Shereen Ratnagar also accepted that he had never done any digging and excavation work.

Case of the temple

The writer has devoted   an entire chapter to examine a crucial inscription which came to light after the demolition of disputed structure in 1992. The stone inscription comprised 20 lines on slab diagonally broken into two. The inscription was in chaste Sanskrit and mentioned the name of King Govinda Chandra of 1114 AD. It also referred to “Saket mandala” and “temple stone for the God Vishnu Hari”. Left historians jumped in to discredit this evidence. Some said that the inscription belonged to later date while others tried to prove that Vishnu Hari referred to an individual and not Lord Vishnu.

Besides debunking such attempts to falsify facts, the book goes a long way to establish the historicity of the temple at Ramjanmabhoomi complex. The writer  looks at evidences ranging from foreign travellers and British administrators to Hindu sources. The book also points to some crucial evidences and aspects that have been conveniently left out of the debate. The writer has discussed Hans Bakker’s critical examination of three main parts of the Ayodhya Mahatmya, the chief work extolling the sacred sites of the city and relating them to the incidents from the life of Sri Ram.

Getting the facts right

In  the later chapter writing about the Left historians joining the debate, the writer points out how these had scholars tried to whitewash the violence by Muslim invaders against Hindu art and religion. Professor Sharma, for example “lamented that a lover of Hindu art and architecture (Babar) should be credited with the destruction of a Ram temple, which in any case, did not exist.” An attempt has been made to put history in right perspective breaking the myths of soft, art-loving invaders who just happened to stumble upon India. Another attempt to obfuscate facts was made by Professor Romila Thapar, who censured the projection of Valmiki’s Ramayana and Tulsidas’s Ramcharitmanas as the sole authentic rendition of  Sri Ram’s story.  The writer’s greatest merit is that she sticks to facts and allows them to tell their own story.   The writer establishes how Valmiki’s work served as the basis for any further retelling. She argues that the future versions were retellings of the Valmiki’s Ramayana that everyone was familiar with. She writes, “It was around the core of Valmiki’s story that subsequently developed the view of Ram as God incarnate… No other version ever matched the repute of Valmiki’s Ramayana.” (p.80) She also puts on record the three early Buddhist and Jain texts that mentioned Ram.

The beginning of conflict

The book also busts the myth that communal flare up over the issue came only in 1991 riding the wave of political communalisation. The book documents the riots in Ayodhya in 1912, 1934. In both the years the riots broke out on the occasion of Bakr-Id over animal sacrifice. In 1913, chief secretary R Burn stated in a letter that the existence of the mosque at the traditional site of  Sri Ram’s birth was “one perpetual cause of friction”. The writer notes that the earlier evidence of conflict dates back to 1822. A note in judicial records submitted to Faizabad Court indicates this. Later, in 1855 British Resident James Outram sent a letter to Awadh Nawab Wajid Ali warning him that a Sunni troublemaker had assembled a force of Muslims near Faizabad and was bent on ruining Hanuman Garhi. A more serious conflict is recorded in 1855 over instance of some Muslims to offer prayers inside Hanuman Garhi.  The writer notes the attempts to reclaim the lost scared spaces as the geo-political realities changed over the years. Such attempts were particularly made under Maratha rulers and Amer ruler Sawai Jai Singh. The writer also documents the resurgence of Ramanadis who organised themselves into akharas and repaired and restored  some of the structures in Ayodhya. This information is critical in understanding the history of the fight for Sri Ram Temple. It also busts the notion that Sri Ram Temple cause is a creation of the nineteenth century.

 It is ironic indeed that the birth place of the most revered God Sri Ram was destroyed, questioned and debated for years. This book provides a strong academic and theoretical foundation to reclaim the glory of Sri Ram.                                      

Indianising Policy Studies

I reviewed the book National Policy Studies in the Light of Ekatma Manav Darshan, Edited by Ravindra Mahajan, for Organiser.
You can read a version of the review below:

Policy Studies is a new emerging academic field in India which helps to understand the issues of governance and public policy planning. Ravindra Mahajan and his team have come up with a compilation of its own kind through this book on policy studies in the light of Integral Humanism (Ekatma Manav Darshan). This work is a result of gigantic academic exercise which  was taken up over a long period time where such policies that affect Indian state and its society were discussed.

Many organisations and individuals of Maharashtra have worked on this for long. The Editor clearly states that this is the first document on public policy and would be followed up with a deeper study on public policy planning of India in future.

The title of the book itself explains that the book aims to undertake an understanding of public policy studies in the light of Integral Humanism (Ekatma Manav Darshan). While there have been efforts in the past to understand politics in the light of Integral Humanism, yet no one has come out with such study on policy till date.

Integral Humanism is an ideology propounded by a RSS Pracharak, great thinker and one of the founding members of Bharatiya Jan Sangh Pt. Deendayal Upadhyaya, who had dwelt on the idea of Integral Humanism while giving his discourses in Mumbai. Integral Humanism was accepted as core idea by the BJS first and later by the BJP.

Integral Humanism tries to decipher different related issues with an Indo-centric approach. It is rooted in the concept that ideas for mind and values for soul are as much important as food for stomach. While the two dominating ideologies of the Western world in last 100 years —Capitalism and Communism— keep the individual and his material needs at the core of its thinking, Integral Humanism on the other hand makes welfare of every living being its core.          

Any thought process gets enriched only when it is propagated, discussed and expounded by intellectuals and academics in given space and time. Efforts to this effect have been put to prepare this document which has come out in the form of a book by Centre for Integral Studies and Research, Pune.

The Editor of the book has accepted that this is not a detailed policy document but only salient points and a comprehensive document is yet to come. However there is no doubt that this is a noble beginning. Inspite of this being a starting step, one can safely say that no documentation of such comprehensive nature has been done in the light of Deendayal Upadhyaya’s ideology in the academic field in last few years. Next step should be in the form of separate comprehensive volumes on each policy issue with proper proof reading, referencing and bibliography which would give the work more academic worth.

This book contains seventeen chapters discussing different policy issues. The Editor has tried to elaborate on two dominant ideologies—Communism and Capitalism—that influenced human race most in last 100 years and the idea of the State before going into the main part of the content. However, it is clear that the views of the writer and readers could differ on these two ideologies. In the later chapters policy issues like governance, education, economy, industry, service sector, science and technology, land acquisition, cooperatives, labour, security and foreign policy, etc are discussed in the light of Integral Humanism.

Two broad policy issues which did not find place in this document are issues of youth and social justice. Caste system and social justice discourse need to be seen as part of policy studies. It has been witnessed time and again that last man standing in the row belongs to the caste that falls lowest in the caste hierarchy i.e. Dalit. It has also been studied as a part of the public policy analysis that 70 per cent of the total population of the country is youth and can be used as a major resource. We could positively hope that these two issues would be discussed in the next detailed volumes.  

In our country, different policies were practiced and propounded by different rulers and thinkers. In this book many of those ideas have been given space and consideration viz. security policy of Shivaji Maharaj, Spying policy of Chanakya and different issues discussed in our shastras.   

This book is written with an emotional touch. It is also a matter of study that how much we should allow our emotions to guide us while working on a policy issue. However, we shall not forget that emotion is the also the best calculation.

This compilation edited by Ravindra Mahajan has been published in the light of this unique ideology. This book would not only be beneficial for academics but would also help activists engaged in the significant task of national reconstruction and people influencing policy making from outside and inside the government. This book will also help those groups and individuals which are associated with gigantic task of developing models of alternative development.  As it is said in this book that this is ‘beginning of the beginning’, we will see deeper study by the same academic group in near future till then this book is worth a read.

Ayodhya: Resurrecting the Lost World

I reviewed the book Rama and Ayodhya for Organiser 

You can read a version of the review below:

The Indian academic scenario is so gripped by leftist ideology that the people associated with it are unable to think beyond the assumed canons. Other points of view are not entertained and anything that doesn’t fit their 150-year-old Marxist framework can’t be either objective or true. Conversely, they are ready to dole out a hundred fabrications to prove what they think ‘should’ be right. In India, leftist ideology and politics have reached a stalemate. Even the senior leaders and ideologues are at a loss when class-struggle transforms into caste-struggle and when lal salam echoes like wale-qum-asslam. The ideological entanglements have not just harmed their own politics but also the progressive politics of India. Ram Janm Bhumi Movement is no exception as there have been unassailed attempts to obfuscate the issue at various levels and in different ways. The book ‘Rama and Ayodhya’ written by Meenakshi Jain is a brave effort to expose the nefarious designs of such leftist academics.

Meenakshi Jain teaches History in Delhi University and has from time to time raised several issues that have been sidelined in the academic discourse driven by JNU-type historians. Why this bunch of leftist historians is so selective in their ideation, research and analysis is subject matter for a separate article.

Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court pronounced in its verdict on September 30, 2010 that the disputed site is nothing but the temple of Ram Lala and sacred place for crores of Hindus and therefore, should be granted to the Hindus. The High Court’s decision was based on a report submitted by the ASI’s excavation team constituted by the order of the court. During the excavation at the disputed site, the ASI found the remains were of a temple that was destroyed and over which a mosque was constructed.  

The writer of this book has brilliantly chronicled the early history of Ayodhya and Ramayana which provides substantial evidences of the existence of a temple of Lord Ram in Ayodhya. While it records the puranic and literary evidences on one hand, it also compiles evidences, facts and courts proceedings on the other, to counter the arguments of the historians who pitch for legitimacy for the disputed structure.

The author makes a long journey of research and study in her quest of Ram, Ramayana and Ayodhya. Working right through folklore to historic evidences Jain gives us a great tome of academic research.  Her book also challenges the leftist historians whose selective footnotes and referencing negate the existence of Ram and declares that the issue of Ayodhya as birthplace of Ram is merely 200 years old created by some British writers. She also mentions how in 1989, 25 historians of JNU initiated the academic debate on Ramjanm Bhumi by publishing a book and laying the foundation of an ideological fraud. Even after the Court’s verdict, they did not stop and as a part of their campaign they organised several seminars and published many booklets denouncing the verdict. 

Jain’s lucid style of handling such a complicate subject, makes it a gripping read. Also, given the span and scope of the subject covered it deserves a place on the shelf of those who value quality research.  

The introductory chapter makes it clear that there is ample proof that  disputed structure was made after demolishing a temple which was worshiped as the birthplace of Lord Ram. In the second, third and fourth chapters the writer takes the help of the literary, sculptural and epigraphic evidences to prove the antiquity and popularity of Ram among common masses. While the introductory chapter makes a strong pitch for Ramjanm Bhumi in Ayodhya, the last one argues that there is no case for mosque. The writer gives evidences from revenue and waqf records of the pre-independence era and judicial pronouncements in earlier cases involving Hindu deities which undermine the Babri case.

Shedding new light on the subject, the writer says that the struggle for Ramjanm Bhumi is hundreds of years old and that the Vishwa Hindu Parishad just carried forward the ancient legacy through the Ram Janmbhumi movement of 1980-90s. Jain gives an account of the historic struggles for the holy site. 

This book unmasks the Leftist writers and historians who have, on one hand, tried to project Hindu faith as hogwash and on the other, have joined efforts to falsify the existence of Ram. It is indeed shocking to know that many of these historians gave statements in court which were later found to be false.

Jain quotes Gandhiji, “The general spirit of India was most vividly reflected in the Ramayana”. It is a great misfortune of the nation that on this land we have to prove the existence of Ram again and again. The evidences submitted by ASI again prove that the Ram Janmbhumi temple was situated on the site for hundreds of years before it was demolished by Babar to build  disputed structure. Undoubtedly, the mosque was built to show the supremacy of the victors and to crush both the faith and the spirit of the inhabitants of this sacred land. For those who still doubt, Jain’s masterpiece is sure to provide an answer. Jain’s work truly shows how a decolonised mind chronicles the history of its homeland.    

This Eklavya won't sacrifice his thumb

My article on aspirations of the Indian youth was published in The Pioneer. 
You can read a version of the article here                                                                                                                               

The youth of India are not a monolithic group and therefore their aspirations vary. While there is section of hi-tech affluent youths who want to begin their start-ups, there are also rural-uneducated-Dalit-female youths who are fighting for bare minimum. If the country boasts of a magnificent plan for 25 IITs, it should not lack in action plan for 15,000 ITIs. Everyone talks about young Indian engineers’ feat in NASA, Silicon Valley, but no one talks about youth from the marginalised section. We cannot overlook Eklavyas for the shining Arjunas

What do the youth in India want? This question gets echoed over and over again from power corridors to creative wormholes. The answers are multiple, amorphous and indefinite because our understanding of the youth as a category is limiting our vision and leaving us with a flawed picture. In a country like India, whose defining feature is its diversity, the youth too are equally diverse and dynamic. To be in a position to evaluate or assess what they want, we must first get the complete view of what youth are as a category.

डॉ भीम राव अंबेडकर - देश और समाज की एकता के महान रक्षक

डॉ भीमराव अंबेडकर की जयंती पर रोजगार समाचार में प्रकाशित मेरा लेख. 

भारत एक सनातन सभ्यता है. यहां संघर्ष, समन्वय और समरसता साथ-साथ चलती रहती है. लेकिन समस्या तब होती है जब कुछ लोग अपने हित साधने के लिए समाज में अस्थिरता पैदा करने की कोशिश करने लगते हैं जिससे कभी-कभी देश की एकता और अखंडता को भी खतरा उत्पन्न होने लगता है. भारत में जाति से जुड़ी समस्याएं भी कुछ ऐसा ही रूप धर कर सामने आ रही हैं. ऐसे समय में संविधान निर्माता डॉ भीम राव अंबेडकर और भी  प्रासंगिक होकर उभरते हैं.

गांधी से अंबेडकर की ओर

इस दशक में अंबेडकर हमारे सामाजिक-राजनीतिक विमर्श में कुछ इस तरह उभरे हैं कि वो महात्मा गांधी से भी महत्वपूर्ण नजर आते हैं. इसका एक कारण ये हो सकता है कि जहां गांधी ने अहिंसक तरीकों से सिर्फ राजनीतिक आजादी और समानता की बात कही वहीं अंबंडकर शुरू से सामाजिक-आर्थिक समानता की बात कर रहे थे. देश को १९४७ में आजादी मिल गई और संविधान ने हम सब को एक व्यक्ति-एक मत के माध्यम से राजनीतिक समानता भी दे दी. पिछले सत्तर साल में राजनीतिक समानता का काम काफी हद तक पूरा भी हो चुका है लेकिन समाजिक और आर्थिक स्तर पर समानता और आजादी मिलना अभी बाकी है. भारतीय संविधान के प्रमुख लक्ष्यों में जिस सामाजिक और आर्थिक समानता, न्याय और स्वतंत्रता की बात कही गई है उस पर कुछ काम ही हो पाया है और बहुत तरीकों से काम किया जाना बाकी है. ऐसे ही दौर में डॉ अंबेडकर एक प्रकाश स्तंभ बनकर उभरते हैं जो हम सबको रास्ता दिखाते हैं. डॉ अंबेडकर स्वतंत्रता आंदोलन के समय भी इस बात के समर्थक थे कि राजनीतिक आजादी के कोई मायने नहीं होंगे अगर सामाजिक-आर्थिक स्तर पर शोषण जारी रहा और हमें इसके गंभीर परिणाम भुगतने पड़ सकते हैं. 

डॉ अंबेडकर ने एक ऐसे भविष्य की कल्पना की थी जो पूरी तरीके से परिवर्तनकारी होगा. भारत को अगर सही अर्थों में एक प्रगतिशील, आधुनिक और विकसित समाज और राज्य बनने की तरफ तेजी से बढ़ना है तो अंबेडकर के विचारों को मूर्त रूप देने के लिए अथक प्रयास करने होंगे. 

पहचान से संसाधन की ओर

भारत में सामाजिक-राजनीतिक विमर्श तेजी से करवट ले रहा है. पहचान की राजनीति का एक दौर अब खत्म होने को है. आज हर भारतीय को राजनीतिक प्रतिनिधित्व स्थानीय स्तर से लेकर राष्ट्रीय स्तर तक मिला हुआ है. हमें पिछले कुछ दशकों में देखा की देश में दलित राजनीति ने अपना प्रमुख स्थान बनाया. आज हर राजनीतिक दल उन्हें संगठन और सरकार में जगह देने के लिए आतुर है. लेकिन सिर्फ इससे सामाजिक-रानीतिक न्याय सुनिश्चित नहीं हो जाता. इसलिए हमें समय के इशारे को समझते हुए संसाधनों की राजनीति के नए दौर में प्रवेश करना होगा जहां संसाधनों और मूल्यों का सभी में समान वितरण संभव हो सके. ऐसे में यहां सवाल ये उठता है कि क्या सिर्फ सरकारी नौकरी देकर संसाधनों का पुनरवितरण सुनिश्चित किया जा सकता है. ऐसा संभव नहीं लगता क्योंकि सरकारी नौकरियों की संख्या सीमित है और पिछले कुछ सालों में करोड़ों की संख्या में वंचित समाज के लोगों अच्छी शिक्षा ग्रहण की है. सभी को सरकारी नौकरियों में नहीं लगाया जा सकता. ऐसे समय में उद्यमिता एक बड़ा समाधान बनकर सामने आती है जिसमें वंचित समाज के युवाओं को नौकरी मांगने वाले की जगह नौकरी देने वाला बनाने पर जोर है. दलित चैंबर औफ कॉमर्स एंड इंडस्ट्री इस दिशा में एक अच्छी पहल है. लेकिन इन सबसे पहले बैकलॉग की नौकरियों को केंद्रीय और राज्य के स्तर पर भर दिया जाना चाहिए.

केंद्र की नरेंद्र मोदी सरकार समाज के बीच की दूरी को खत्म करने और सामाजिक और आर्थिक सुनिश्चित करने के सभी प्रयास कर रही है. सरकार एक ऐसा वातावरण बनाने का प्रयास कर रही है जिसमें दलित उद्यमिता को बढ़ावा दिया जा सके. स्टैंड अप, दलित वेंचर कैपिटलिस्ट फंड और मुद्रा कुछ ऐसी स्कीमें हैं जहां समाज के कमजोर तबके को आसानी से लोन दिए जाने की व्यवस्था की गई है.  एक तरफ जहां सरकार इस तरह की भविष्य की स्कीमें बनाकर सामाजिक समानता और न्याय सुनिश्चित कर समरसता का वातावरण बनाने की कोशिश कर रही है वहीं कुछ ऐसी ताकतें हैं जो समाज के कुछ वर्गों में दूरी (सेंस ऑफ अदरनेस) बनाने की कोशिश में लगे हैं.

ऐसे कठिन समय में डॉ अंबेडकर और भी प्रासंगिक हो जाते हैं जिन्होंने हमेशा देश और समाज को जोड़ने का ही प्रयास किया.

जाति-विहीन समाज

अंबेडकर ने एक जाति विहान समाज की कल्पना की थी. आज के दौर में हमें अगर इस दिशा में आगे बढ़ना है तो जाति से जुड़े हुए सवालों का एक समयबद्ध तरीके से समाधान निकालना ही होगा अगर हमें समग्र रूप से अपने समाज में एक गुणात्मक बदलाव आने वाले समय में देखना है. हमारे विकास की गुणवत्ता समाज की एकता पर काफी हद तक निर्भर करती है जो आज बहुत कमजोर है और जिसका कुछ लोग फायदा उठाकर देश को पीछे धकेलना चाहते हैं.  

राष्ट्रीय एकता

अंबेडकर ने देश और समाज को एक और मजबूत बनाने के लिए हर संभव प्रयास किए. उनकी सफलता इसमें है कि उन्होने सबसे पहले समस्या को पहचाना और उस पर पुरजोर चोट करने की कोशिश की. देश और समाज की एकता बनाए रखने के लिए उन्होंने पहले आजादी के आंदोलन के दौरान और फिर संविधान निर्माता के रूप में अपना योगदान दिया. उनका साफ तौर पर मानना था कि भारतीय सभ्यता के विकास में जाति सबसी बड़ी बाधा है जिसे दूर किया जाना चाहिए.

अंबेडकर ने सामाजिक असमानता और छुआछूत के खिलाफ आवाज उठाई. वो उन छह करोड़ लोगों की आवाज बन गए जो समाज के सबसे निचले पायेदान पर आते थे और किसी भी तरीके से मुख्यधारा में शामिल नहीं थे. भारतीय स्वतंत्रता आंदोलन सिर्फ अंग्रेजों से आजादी का अभियान नहीं था बल्कि वो एक आधुनिक राष्ट्र-राज्य के निर्माण की लड़ाई थी जिसमें दासता के साथ-साथ असमानता और अन्याय का कोई स्थान नहीं था. अंबेडकर ने जो संघर्ष किया वो आंतरिक शोषण और दासता के खिलाफ था जिसके बिना आजादी अधूरी थी. भारतीय समाज के इस आंतरिक सशक्तीकरण से भारतीय राष्ट्रवाद का सामाजिक आधार और अधिक मजबूत और व्यापक हुआ. अंबेडकर के द्वारा मिली राजनीतिक चुनौती ने कांग्रेस को मजबूर किया कि उसने अस्पृश्यता की समस्या को महत्व दिया और संविधान के माध्यम बहुत से प्रावधान बनाकर उन्हें दूर करने की कोशिश की. 

सामाजिक-राजनीतिक एकता

अंबेडकर ने समाज के निचले तबके पर पड़ी तिरस्कृत जातियों के सवाल को उठाया और उन्हें एक नई राजनीतिक ऊंचाई देते हुए लोकतंत्र और राष्ट्रवाद के साथ जोड़ दिया. अंबेडकर ने राजनीति से पहले समाज को महत्व दिया और दोनों को जोड़ते हुए एक नया विमर्श खड़ा किया जो पहले नहीं देखा गया था.  गांधी ने भी ऐसे प्रयोग करने की कोशिश की थी लेकिन उनमें आक्रामकता की कमी दिखती थी. अंबेडकर के अनुसार, सामाजिक एकता के बिना राजनीतिक एकता लाना संभव नहीं है. अगर कुछ समय के लिए ऐसा हो भी जाता है तो वो उस छोटे पौधे की तरह होगा जो किसी तेज हवा में उड़ सकता है. राजनीतिक एकता के साथ भारत सिर्फ एक राज्य के रूप में रह सकता है. लेकिन राज्य और राष्ट्र में फर्क होता है. ऐसा राज्य अस्तित्व की ही लड़ाई लड़ता रहेगा और उसके बचने की संभावना कम होती है.

अंबेडकर की आस्था

अंबेडकर की भारत के पुरातन परम्पराओं और आध्यात्म में पूरी श्रद्धा थी. वो भारतीय दर्शन और वांगमय के आध्यात्मिक पहलू से सहमत थे लेकिन कर्मकांडी पहलुओं से उन्हें सख्त गुरेज था. उन्हें जाति व्यवस्था को खत्म करने की बात कही जो पिछले कुछ सौ सालों में विकसित हुई थी ना कि धर्म व्यवस्था को जो हजारों साल से इस सभ्यतागत विमर्श का हिस्सा थी.  उन्होंने भारत में धर्म के महत्व को समझा था इसीलिए जब उन्हें धर्म परिवर्तन करना था तो किसी अब्राहमिक पंथ की जगह उन्हें भारत से उपजे बौद्ध धर्म को अपनाना ही उचित समझा.

अंबेडकर का मानना था कि लोकतंत्र के ऐतिहासिक प्रमाण बारत में बुद्ध से भी पहले मिलते हैं. उनका कहना था कि बौद्ध भिक्षु संघ की संरचना में संघ का तात्पर्य संसदीय प्रणाली से ही था जहां समूह में चर्चा होती थी और मिलकर निर्णय लिये जाते थे. उनका कहना था कि हिंदुओं ने समानता, स्वतंत्रता और बंधुत्व का विचार कहीं बाहर से उधार नहीं लिया है. ये सिद्धांत भारतीय धर्म-दर्शन पूरी तरीके से मौजदू हैं. अपनी पुस्तक रिडिल्स इन हिंदुइज्म में उनका मानना है कि हिंदू धर्म में सामाजिक लोकतंत्र बनने के आध्यात्मिक बिंदु विद्यमान हैं.

संविधान निर्माता के रूप में

संविधान निर्माता के रूप में भी अंबडकर ने भारतीय राष्ट्र-राज्य की एकता-अखंडता को और मजबूत बनाने की कोशिश की. उन्होंने कश्मीर में धारा ३७० का विरोध किया जब पंडित नेहरू ने शेख अब्दुल्लाह की बात सुनते हुए उसे पारित करवा दिया. अंबेडकर ने शेख अब्दुल्लाह को लिखा था ऐसा संभव नहीं कि भारत सरकार आपको हर तरह की मदद दे लेकिन उसके पास कश्मीर के संबंध में सीमित शक्तियां ही हों. ऐसे किसी भी प्रस्ताव का समर्थन करना देशद्रोह होगा और मैं ऐसा नहीं कर सकता.

क्षेत्रीय, भाषाई और साम्प्रादायिक दिक्कतों से ऊपर उठते हुए अंबेडकर ने सच्चे लोकतंत्रवादी की तरह समान नागरिक संहिता की बात कहते हुए लोकतांत्रिक राष्ट्रवाद को बढ़ावा दिया. समान नागरिक संहिता पर उनके विचार नेहरू से बहुत अलग थे जिन्होंने सिद्धांत में तो इसे स्वीकार किया था लेकिन उसे संसद में पारित नहीं करवा पाए थे. वहीं दूसरी तरफ अंबेडकर ने संविधान की प्रस्तावना में लिखे शब्द बंधुत्व पर बहुत जोर दिया जिसे सभी भारतियों में भाईचारा की भावना विकसित की जा  सके.

डॉ अंबेडकर ने अपने पहले भाषण में ही एक मजबूत केंद्र सरकार बनाने की बात कही थी जिससे भारत की स्वतंत्रता में बाधा ना पहुंचे जैसा कि देश के विभाजन और दूसरे अन्य मौकों पर पहले हो चुका था. उनकी इस बात को सदन ने माना था और बाद में ये बिंदु संविधान के आपातकालीन प्रावधान के माध्यम से शामिल किए गए थे. आज सामान्य समय में राज्यों के पास कापी शक्तियां हैं लेकिन देश पर संकट होने की स्थिति में केंद्र सरकार के पास बहुत सी शक्तियां आ जाती हैं.

इसमें कोई संदेह नहीं कि अंबेडकर ने अन्यायपूर्ण सामाजिक स्तरीकरण का विरोध किया लेकिन ऐसा नहीं कह सकते कि वो भारतीय राष्ट्रवाद के खिलाफ थे. अंबेडकर कहते हैं, मैं जानता हूं कि मेरी स्थिति को इस देश में सही ढंग से नहीं समझा गया. जब भी मेरे और मेरे देश के हितों के बीच टकराव होगा तो मेरे लिए राष्ट्रहित सर्वोपरि होंगे. मैंने कभी व्यक्तिगत लाभ के लिए काम नही किया लेकिन देश की बात आने पर पीछे भी नहीं हटा.

अंबेडकर देश और समाज की एकता और अखंडता के रक्षक थे. वो एक ऐसे राष्ट्रीय नेता थे जिन्होने समाज के सबसे कमजोर, वंचित तबके की समस्याओं को समझा था और उन्हें मुख्यधारा में लाने का काम किया था. उन्होने भारतीय राष्ट्रवाद का सामाजिक आधार बढ़ाया जिससे पहले तो अधिक से अधिक लोग स्वतंत्रता आंदोलन में सम्मिलित हो सके और बाद में देश के विकास में आगे बढ़ सके. आज जब देश में समावेशी राजनीति का विमर्श जोरों पर है तो अंबेडकर को समझना और भी प्रासंगिक हो जाता है. 

Dr Bhim Rao Ambedkar : The Great Unifier

My article on Dr Bhim Rao Ambedkar appeared in Employment News.

You can read a version of the article below:

Poised between the new and old, redundant and revolutionary, predictable and
unforeseen, a living and dynamic society like India is bound to experience conflict as well
as harmony. It negotiates its way through these polarities to move ahead, gradually leaving
behind and overcoming problems that had been rooted in the society for years. A serious
problem, however, emerges when some of these problems are used by vested interests to
create instability that threatens national security and integrity. The problem of caste today,
seems to be assuming such dimensions.

Gandhi to Ambedkar

The most remarkable development of this decade has been that Ambedkar is now an
inalienable part of our socio-political discourse, sometimes even superseding Mahatma
Gandhi in importance and relevance. One of the reasons for this could be that Gandhi
primarily focused on political freedom and political equality of every Indian from the British
colonial masters. India gained political freedom in 1947 and political equality through the
Constitution that gave equal voting rights to every adult. The tools adopted by Gandhi –
particularly ahimsa and peaceful non-cooperation - to bring freedom were considered
unique and were emulated and adopted in different parts of the world. He guided India to
the gates of freedom following which a stable state machinery was put in place that
worked within the parameters of the best possible procedural democracy. It then became
imperative to achieve the other objectives enshrined in the Constitution and Dr. Bhim Rao
Ambedkar emerged as an important figure with his repeated emphasis on socio-economic
freedom and equality of every citizen. Even during the freedom struggle he said that there
would be no meaning of freedom if the depressed classes continued to be exploited.

Ambedkar envisioned a transformative future which India now needs if it truly wants to
take a quantum jump to a modern, progressive and developed society.

Recognition to Resources

In India, a phase of politics of recognition and identity assertion is almost complete now.
Now more or less everyone in India gets political representation at the local and national
level. We witnessed the emergence of Dalit politics and how it created a significant space
in Indian national politics so much so that all political parties are now vying for Dalit votes.
However, vote-bank politics does not necessarily ensure social and economic justice for
everyone. It is time hence, to usher the politics of resources where resources and values
get distributed among all equitably. This throws up another burning question of our time –
can this process of redistribution of resources be completed simply by ensuring
government jobs for youth of Dalit community? The answer is a clear no because in the
recent decades more and more Dalit youths have emerged as graduates who cannot be
fit into the limited government jobs. At this juncture, entrepreneurship emerges as an
option where educated and trained youth, especially Dalits, end up as job providers and
not job seekers. The Dalit Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (DCCI) is a good
example of an initiative in this direction. That being said, backlog vacancies should also be
filled on an urgent basis in all central and state offices.

The Narendra Modi-led government is making all efforts to bridge the gap between the
Dalits and others. The Central government is trying to create an ecosystem for Dalit
entrepreneurship where Dalits can take funds from banks to start their business. Stand up
India, Dalit venture capitalist fund and MUDRA are few of the schemes that have
benefitted the weaker sections of the society in the recent years. On one side, the
government is making all efforts with futuristic policies for weaker sections while on the
other side are the forces who are trying to create a sense of otherness among
marginalised communities, especially Dalits.

Dr BR Ambedkar becomes all the more relevant in these hard times as his works and
words light the path through the social churning and the resultant clamour.

Caste-less Society

Ambedkar dreamt of a caste-less society. It requires us to think, with all honesty, about the
pending caste questions and come up with a time-bound framework for a qualitative
transformation of our society as a whole. The quality of our growth depends on the social

cohesiveness which is weak at this point and is being exploited by some to widen the fault
lines. It is time to take Ambekar’s ideas to the front lines to fill up these fault lines.

Integrating India

Ambedkar was a great unifier. He always thought about the unity and integrity of this
country. First as freedom fighter and later as constitution framer he tried to unite the
country in every possible way. He was of the view that caste is the greatest hurdle in the
unity and prosperity of this civilisation.

During the freedom struggle he worked for the downtrodden and depressed classes of the
society. He talked about freedom of India from social inequality and untouchability. Dr.
Ambedkar became the voice of those 60 million who were a part of the deprived sections
known as Scheduled Castes. Without the emancipation of these, Indian freedom struggle
could not be deemed to be complete. The Indian national struggle in the first half of the
century was not merely a struggle to wrest political power from foreign rule but also a
struggle to lay the foundation of a modern India by purging the society of outmoded social
institutions, beliefs and attitudes. Ambedkar's struggle constituted a part of the internal
struggle, one of the divergent and sometimes conflicting currents all of which helped to
secure 'freedom' from external and internal oppression and enslavement. The process of
internal consolidation of the nation strengthened and broadened the social base of Indian
nationalism.

Ambedkar had immense faith in the bright future and evolution of this country. It was
Ambedkar’s political challenge which compelled the Congress to appreciate the national
significance of the problem of castes and to adopt measures which significantly
contributed towards broadening and strengthening the social base of Indian nationalism.

Socio-political Unity

Ambedkar took up the caste question from social below and elevated it to a political high
by linking social question of caste with the political question of democracy and nationalism.
Such an effort to prioritise society over polity and then linking them together was
unprecedented in India before Ambedkar. Gandhi can be said to have made such an effort
but his approach was obscure and primitive. According to Ambedkar,’Without social union,

political unity is difficult to be achieved. If achieved, it would be as precarious as a summer
sapling, liable to be uprooted by the gust of a hostile wind. With mere political unity, India
may be a State. But to be a State is not to be a nation and a State, which is not a nation,
has small prospects of survival in the struggle for existence.’

Ambedkar’s Faith in ‘Bharat’

Ambedkar had faith in ancient Indian institutions and texts except caste. He was
convinced with the spiritual aspect of Indian texts and codes but not with its ritualistic
aspects which had developed in last 1200 years. He talked about Annihilation of Caste not
Dharma. He understood the importance of Dharma in India and when the time of
conversion came as he had declared earlier, he chose Buddhism and not any other
Abrahamic religion. He also had the option of declaring him as an Atheist but his
rootedness in Indian ethos compelled him to choose Buddhism.

Dr Ambedkar pointed out that historic roots of democracy in India go back to pre-Buddhist
India. A study of the Buddhist Bhikshu Sanghas discloses that the Sanghas were nothing
but Parliaments and knew all the rules of Parliamentary procedure known to modern times.
Although these rules of Parliamentary procedure were applied by the Buddha to the
meetings of the Sanghas, he must have borrowed them from the rules of the political
assemblies functioning in the country in his time.

Dr Ambedkar emphasized that Hindus need not ‘borrow from foreign sources’ concepts to
build a society on the principles of equality, fraternity and liberty. They ‘could draw for such
principles on the Upanishads.’ Even in Riddles in Hinduism, he points out that Hinduism
has the potential to become the spiritual basis of social democracy.

Uniting State through Constitution

Ambedkar opposed insertion of Article 370 which gives special status to the state of
Jammu & Kashmir but Nehru still went ahead with it to appease Sheikh Abdullah.
Ambedkar wrote to Sheikh Abdullah on Article 370, ‘You wish India should protect your
borders, she should build roads in your area, she should supply you food grains, and
Kashmir should get equal status as India. But Government of India should have only
limited powers and Indian people should have no rights in Kashmir. To give consent to this

proposal would be a treacherous thing against the Interest of India and I, as the Law
Minister of India, will never do it.’

Ambedkar was the author and principal actor to make the ‘Directive Principles’ as part of
the constitutional scheme. When it was criticized that the directive principles could not be
enforced in a court of law, Ambedkar answered that though they were not enforceable, the
succeeding majority political party in Parliament or Legislative Assembly would be bound
by them as an inbuilt part of their economic program in the governance, despite their policy
in its manifesto and are bound by the Constitution.

Rising above the regional, linguistic and communal barriers in a true republican spirit,
Ambedkar invented a democratic nationalism consisting of Uniform Civil Code for India.
His views of Uniform Civil Code were radically different from his contemporaries including
Nehru who in principles accepted Hindu Code Bill and Uniform Civil Code but in practice,
failed to get the Bill passed in one go, in spite of being in Government with majority.
Ambedkar on the other hand made it a point to add the word 'fraternity' in the Preamble to
the Constitution in order to inculcate the sense of common brotherhood of all Indians, of
Indians being one people; it is the principle which gives unity and solidarity to social life.

Dr. Ambedkar in his very first speech in the Constituent Assembly on 17 December 1946
had emphasised the need to create a strong Centre in order to ensure that India's freedom
was not jeopardised as had happened in the past on account of a weak central
administration. His view was hailed by the Assembly and came later to be reflected in the
Emergency Provisions of the Constitution. Undoubtedly the states are sovereign in normal
times but by virtue of these provisions, the Centre becomes all-powerful and assumes
control over all affairs of the nation whenever a situation arises which poses a danger to
the security of the state.

There is no doubt that Ambedkar was vehemently opposed to the unjust social
stratification in India, but to say that he was against the nation is wholly wrong. Ambedkar
writes,‘I know my position has not been understood properly in the country. I say that
whenever there has been a conflict between my personal interests of the country as a
whole, I have always placed the claims of the country above my personal claims. I have
never pursued the path of private gain… so far as the demands of the country are
concerned, I have never lagged behind’.

Ambedkar was a great unifier who always stood up for unity and integrity of the Indian
state. He was a national leader who understood the problems of the most exploited
communities and tried to bring them into the main stream. He expanded the social base of
Indian nationalism which helped first to attain freedom and later to put the country on path
of progress. Today, when all thought converges around inclusive politics, Ambedkar has
become more relevant than ever.

Speech on Youth Issue at 3rd India Ideas Conclave 2016

Sardar Ballabh Bhai Patel : The Architect of Modern India

My tribute to 'Iron Man' Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel on his birth anniversary was published in Employment News.
You can read a version of the article below:

It was the long cherished dream of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to build a statue of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel in Gujarat. Known as the Statue of Unity, the project has been completed now and is the tallest in the world with a height of 182 meters. Prime Minister Narendra Modi is scheduled to inaugurate the statue on October 31 - the birthday of this giant of Indian politics also known as the Iron Man.

In 2014, Modi government started celebrating 31 October as Rashtriya Ekta Diwas (National Unity Day). The official statement of the Home Ministry says, “This Day will provide an opportunity to re-affirm the inherent strength and resilience of our nation to withstand the actual and potential threats to the unity, integrity and security of our country.”


These two initiatives of the Modi government signify the importance of Sardar Patel in unifying India which stood broken into many parts at the time of Independence in the wake of the ‘Divide and Rule’ policy of the colonial rulers. Many believed that a united India could no longer be forged out of the pieces and the newly independent nation was bound to crumble. It was Patel who took up the mantle and pieced together a united India.

The Unifier

Modern India, as a sum of inalienable parts, is the biggest legacy of Sardar Patel. As the Home Minster he worked tirelessly to unite country by bringing within  the national fold the princely states that were spread across the length and breadth of the country. All the princely states merged with India on the call given by Sardar Patel except three - Jammu and Kashmir, Junagadh and Hyderabad. Nehru himself looked after the affairs of J&K but Junagadh and Hyderabad were integrated into India with Sardar Patel’s intervention. For completing this Herculean task in a charged environment, Patel was considered as 'Bismarck of India'.

Patel worked to forge a united India out of the many pieces left by the British. These comprised the colonial provinces that had been allocated to India and approximately 565 self-governing princely states had been released. With tact and tenacity, Patel persuaded almost every princely state to accede to India. It earned him the title of "Iron Man of India" as he was able to accomplish what many saw at the time as impossible.

With the mammoth task of integrating princely states at hand, Patel sought the help of VP Menon, a senior civil servant with whom he had worked on the Partition of India. Menon  became his right-hand man as chief secretary of the States Ministry. It was on 6 May 1947 that Patel began concerted efforts to bring round the princes. This was the time when political ambiguity had sown seeds of distrust and led to clamor among the princely states for autonomy. At this point he lobbied with the princes and brought them to the discussion table. He used all tools of diplomacy and politics, meeting royals in unofficial settings and reaching out to them to convince them that their future was safe in united Independent India. On one hand he proposed favourable terms of merger and allowances like privy purses, while on the other he also appealed to the innate alligence of the royals to India. By the deadline of 15 August 1947, all except three had signed the instrument of accession document willingly merging into the Indian union.


Organiser

Sardar Patel was an able organiser and administrator. He studied law from England and was a well known advocate before entering public life. He entered pol­­itics at the grassroots and organised the peasants of Kathiawar in Gujarat. He held successful peasant movements Kheda, Borsad and Bardoli. These were important as they helped Congress to break out of the image of being a party for the middle class. It sent the message that Congress also represented the interests of farmers.

The Kheda Satyagraha, in which Mahatma Gandhi also participated, began with a village-by-village tour to document grievances of the villagers. Patel undertook this difficult task supported by  Congress volunteers. They sought the support of  the villagers for a statewide revolt by refusing to pay taxes and received enthusiastic response from virtually every village. As the government cracked the whip on the revolt, seizing property and confiscating animals, Patel organised counter-action. He used a group of volunteers to help villagers hide their valuables and protect themselves against raids. After widespread arrests, the government agreed to negotiate with Patel. The payment of taxes was suspended for a year and the rate was scaling back.

The Gujarati community began to look upon Patel a hero. In 1920 he was elected as the president of the newly formed Gujarat Pradesh Congress Committee and served as its president until 1945. He went on to become the president of Congress at its 1931 session in Karachi. Under his presidentship the Congress ratified the Gandhi-Irvin pact and committed itself to standing up for fundamental rights and civil liberties. It advocated the establishment of a secular nation with a minimum wage and the abolition of untouchability and serfdom. Patel used his position as Congress president to organise the return of confiscated land to farmers in Gujarat.

Patel was also seen as the lead fundraiser of the Congress party. Whenever Gandhi was about to start a movement, he directed Patel to mobilise funds for party activities. Patel was also considered as a supporter of capitalists because of his friendship with industrialists Birla and Sarabhai.

 Patel's engagement as a key fundraiser for the party and its ace election manager began from 1934 when the party changed its stand on electoral boycott. From his Mumbai-based apartment he toiled to raise funds for the party’s political activities in 1934 elections to the Central Legislative Assembly in New Delhi and for provincial elections of 1936. As the chairman of the Congress’s Central Parliamentary Board, he also played the lead role in selecting and financing candidates and determining the party’s stance on a galaxy of issues.

Administrator 

His first step into electoral politics came with being elected the municipal councilor. He later also became the chairman of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. His administrative abilities were at display during this time when he managed the municipal affairs meticulously focusing on sanitation, electrification and education. His experience in managing the municipal affairs came handy when he took over as the first home minister of the country.

Patel also established the modern all-India services system. For this he is remembered as the "patron saint of India's civil servants".


Home Minister

It is often pointed out that Patel’s appointment as the home minister came only after hectic bargaining by Nehru for the post of Prime Minister. Patel was the first and far more popular claimant of the job.

As per the records, Nehru lobbied during the 1946 election for Congress presidency. The nominations for the post were to be made by 15 state/regional Congress committees. None of the Congress Committees proposed Nehru’s name despite the fact that he had Gandhi’s backing. As many as 12 out of the 15 committees put forward Patel’s name and the move was overwehlmingly in his favour. However, Gandhi intervened for Nehru and put Acharya J B Kriplani on the task of getting some members from the Congress Working Committeee (CWC) to propose Nehru’s name. This was done despite the fact that only Pradesh Congress Committees were authorized to nominate the president. Nehru, however, continued to be defiant. Gandhi thus turned to Patel to break the deadlock and the Iron Man stepped down in favour of Nehru.


Partition

 In December 1946 and January 1947, Patel worked with VP Menon on the proposal for a separate dominion of Pakistan created out of Muslim-majority provinces. As Bengal and Punjab broke into communal clashes Patel was convinced that Partition was the only way out. He fiercely resisted Jinnah's demand to club Hindu-majority areas of Punjab and Bengal in a Muslim state and pushed through the partition of those provinces.

In the wake of the intense violence and the massive human displacement due to Partition, Patel took the lead in organising relief and emergency supplies, establishing refugee camps, and visiting the border areas with Pakistani leaders to encourage peace. He continued this work as the first home minister and deputy prime minister of India and ensured that the refugees were assimilated into the new born country.


Constituent Assembly

Patel made several significant contributions to the Constituent Assembly as the chairman of the committees responsible for minorities, tribal and excluded areas, fundamental rights, and provincial constitutions. He worked with Muslim leaders to end demand for separate electorates and reservation of seats. He was responsible for the measure that allows the president to appoint Anglo-Indians to Parliament. He was also responsible for putting in place safeguards for civil servants from political involvement.

Conclusion

Over the years, with Nehru tightening its grip on Congress, his legacy far outlived that of Patel. Though, Gandhi had famously remarked that a free India needed both Patel and Nehru. Patel was fiercely loyal to Gandhi as well as a nationalist who kept the country’s interest before personal ambition. It is because of these factors that he allowed Nehru to take on Prime Ministership and even offered to quit when the things between them came to a head in 1948. However, he stayed in the government at the behest of Gandhi and was the last person to have had a private talk with him.

Patel considered the demolition Somnath Temple as a symbol of slavery and pledged the reconstruction of the ancient but dilapidated Somnath Temple in Gujarat. After Independence, he oversaw the restoration work and the creation of a public trust, and wowed to dedicate the temple upon the completion of work. The work was completed after his death and the temple was inaugurated by the first President of India, Dr Rajendra Prasad.

The party that he had nurtured and led for years failed to give Patel the respect that he deserved and his contributions were allowed to fade from public memory for almost four decades. With a decisive change in the political mood of the country, Patel has once again come to the front. In the contemporary India he has come to symbolize political acumen, ability to take difficult decisions and importance of the idea of nation. The BJP, which is now in power at the Centre is giving due credit to the Iron Man of India who got Bharat Ratna 41 years after his death.

अंग्रेजी की दुनिया में हिंदी की धमक

दैनिक जागरण 23 अक्टूबर 2018 में प्रकाशित मेरा लेख:

पिछले दिनों लटियन्स दिल्ली के एक बड़े होटल में अमेरिकी दूतावास के एक अधिकारी से मुलाकात हुई और विजिटिंग कार्ड का आदान-प्रदान हुआ. उनका विजिटिंग कार्ड एक तरफ तो अंग्रेजी में था लेकिन दूसरी तरफ वही जानकारी हिंदी में भी थी. पहले इस तरह की मीटिंग में मिलने वाले विजिटिंग कार्ड अंग्रेजी भाषा में होते थे. ये ऐसा पहला अनुभव था और लगा कि महज संयोग होगा. लेकिन अगले एक-दो दिन में ही देखा कि मिरर नाऊ ( जो मूलतः अंग्रेजी न्यूज चैनल की श्रेणी में आता है) पर हिंदी में बहस हो रही है. उसी के बगल वाले रिपब्लिक न्यूज चैनल पर अरनब गोस्वामी और टाम्स नाऊ पर नविका कुमार हिंदी में बड़ी शान से लच्छेदार मुहावरे बोलते नजर आ रहे हैं. किसी अंग्रेजी चैनल पर देखा तो उनका हैशटैग हिंदी में था जो ज्यादा से ज्यादा लोगों को समझ आ सके जिससे उस हैशटैग पर अधिक से अधिक ट्वीट आ सकें. इन दिनों प्रिंट और वायर जैसे अंग्रेजी में लॉन्च हुए पोर्टल की अंग्रेजीदां रिपोर्टर्स हिंदी में वीडियो करते नजर आ रही हैं. ये सारी घटनाएं साफ इशारा कर रही थीं कि हिंदी सामाजिक पिरामिड के निचले तल से होती हुई नई ऊंचाइयां तय कर रही है.

फिर देखने में आया कि मामला न्यूज चैनल और पोर्टल तक सीमित नहीं है. दुनिया की सबसी बड़ी ई-कॉमर्स कंपनी अमेजॉन बड़े गौरव से टीवी पर बता रही है कि वेबसाइट पर जानकारी हिंदी में भी उपलब्ध है. नेटफ्लिक्स और अमेजॉन प्राइम पर दुनिया के अलग अलग हिस्सों में विभिन्न भाषाओं में बनी बेहतरीन बेहतरीन वेब सिरीज आपको हिंदी में एक क्लिक में मिल जाएगी. गूगल, फेसबुक सहित दूसरी बड़ी वेबसाइटें तो पहले से हिंदी में कामकाज शुरू कर चुकी थीं.

बड़ी बात तो तब हो गई जब देखा गया कि दुनिया की सबसे बड़ी संस्था संयुक्त राष्ट्र संघ ने भी हिंदी में कुछ कामकाज शुरू किया और ट्विटर पर हिंदी में सूचना देने का क्रम शुरू किया.