Sunday 26 November 2017

सी बी आई जज लोया की मौत के मामले में उठे सवालों की जाँच हो- सोशलिस्ट पार्टी मध्य प्रदेश

25 नवम्बर 2017

प्रेस रिलीज़
सी बी आई जज लोया की मौत के मामले में उठे सवालों की जाँच हो- सोशलिस्ट पार्टी मध्य प्रदेश

      सोहराबुद्दीन एनकाउंटर मामले में सुनवाई कर रहे सीबीआई जज बृजगोपाल लोया की मौत पर द कारवां पत्रिका ने एक रिपोर्ट प्रकाशित की हैजिसमें उनके परिजनों ने उनकी मृत्यु की संदेहास्पद परिस्थितियों पर सवाल उठाए साथ ही उन्हें सोहराबुद्दीन मामले में अमित शाह के पक्ष में फैसला देने के लिए 100 करोड़ रुपये की रिश्वत देने के प्रस्ताव की बात भी कहीसोशलिस्ट पार्टी एक जिम्मेदार राजनैतिक दल होने के नाते यह मानता है किदेश के सत्ता रूढ़ दल के अध्यक्ष और न्यायपालिका पर उठे इतने गंभीर आरोप होने के नाते इस मामले में एक निष्पक्ष जाँच लाज़मी हैकारवां पत्रिका व्दारा उठाए सवालों से जनता के मन में राजनीति और न्याय व्यवस्था दोनों के प्रति गहरे सवाल उठ रहें हैराजनीति में सुचिता और न्याय व्यवस्था में आस्था बनाए रखने के लिए जरुरी है कि सरकार और न्यायपालिका इस मामले में स्वत: पहल कर मामले से सभी पहलुओं को जाँच के माध्यम से जनता के सामने लाएंएसपी आई ने इस मामले में स्थापित मीडिया और स्थापित राजनैतिक दलों की चुप्पी पर भी सवाल उठाएसोशलिस्ट पार्टी मध्यप्रदेश के अध्यक्ष राम स्वरूप मंत्री ने आज जारी विज्ञप्ती में बताया की द कारवां की इस रिपोर्ट में उनके परिजनों की ओर से कई सवाल उठाए गए हैंजैसे-
• लोया की मौत के समय को लेकर कोई स्पष्टता नहीं है. पोस्टमॉर्टम रिपोर्ट के अनुसार मृत्यु का समय दिसंबर 2014 को सुबह 6:15 बजे दर्ज है,जबकि परिजनों के मुताबिक उन्हें एक तारीख़ को सुबह बजे फोन पर उनकी मृत्यु की सूचना दी गई थी.
• लोया की मौत दिल के दौरे से होना बताया गयाजबकि परिजनों ने उनके कपड़ों पर खून के धब्बे देखे थे.
• लोया के पिता के अनुसार उनके सिर पर चोट भी थी.
• परिवार को लोया का फोन मौत के कई दिन बाद लौटाया गयाजिसमें से डाटा डिलीट किया गया था.
• साथ ही उन्होंने यह भी कहा कि रवि भवन से सबसे नज़दीकी ऑटो स्टैंड की दूरी दो किलोमीटर है. ऐसे में आधी रात को ऑटो मिलना कैसे संभव हुआ.
• एक सवाल ईश्वर बहेटी नाम के आरएसएस कार्यकर्ता पर भी उठाया गया है. इसी कार्यकर्ता ने लोया की मौत के बाद पार्थिव शरीर को उनके पैतृक गांव ले जाने की जानकारी परिजनों को दीसाथ ही लोया का फोन भी परिवार को बहेटी ने ही लौटाया था.
• पोस्टमॉर्टम रिपोर्ट के हर पन्ने पर एक व्यक्ति के दस्तखत हैंजिसके नीचे मृतक से संबंध मराठी में चचेरा भाई’ लिखा हैलेकिन परिवार का कहना है कि परिवार में ऐसा कोई व्यक्ति ही नहीं है.
• रिपोर्ट कहती है कि लोया की मौत प्राकृतिक कारणों से हुईतो फिर पोस्टमॉर्टम की ज़रूरत क्यों  
पड़ी?
एसपी आई का मानना है किउपरोक्त सवालों के जवाब देना न्यायपालिका और सरकार की जवाबदारी है|


रामस्वरूप मंत्री
अध्यक्ष
सोशलिस्ट पार्टी मध्य प्रदेश

Friday 24 November 2017

CAN YOGI CONTINUING AS A CHIEF MINISTER OF U.P.

CAN YOGI CONTINUING AS A CHIEF MINISTER OF U.P.
Rajindar Sachar

RAJINDAR SACHAR,Chief Justice (Retd.),High Court of Delhi, New Delhi,
Chairperson Prime Minister’s High Level Committee On Status of Muslims (Ex.)
The Shocking statement by Yogi, the Chief Minister of U.P., namely “I believe that the word “Secular” is the biggest lie since independence”, should result in his immediate dismissal. Would some advisers of Yogi enlighten him that the preamble to our Constitution specifically states that India is a Secular; Socialist State. Would his advisors also enlighten him that the Supreme Court has held that “Secularism” is the basic feature of our Constitution and any state government which fails in upholding this basic feature has no right to continue –in fact in Bommais Case, the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of Nine State governments on this score alone.

May I also remind Yogi and his colleagues that as per article 75(4) of the Constitution of India they took oath before entering upon their offices which requires them to swear in the name of God that they will bear true faith and allegiance to the constitution of India as by law established. The oath covers the protection of Secularism as mentioned in the Preamble to the Constitution as existing at the time of taking oath. Anyone suggesting to the contrary would be taking the ludicrous stand that the oath would not oblige the Ministers to follow the mandate of over 100 amendments to constitution made since the original constitution of 1950.

No Yogi Sahib, unless you accept Secularism as a part of your government as per Bommais case by Supreme Court, Central govt. is undeer legal obligation to dismiss U.P. Government.

I hope Yogi Ji would certainly accept that the there is no greater exponent of Hinduism than Swami Vivekananda. This is what he said; Therefore, I am firmly persuaded that without the help of practical Islam, theories of Vedantism, however fine and wonderful they may be, are entirely valueless to the vast mass of mankind which ought to be taught that religions are but the varied expression of THE RELIGION, which is Oneness, so that each may choose the path that suits him best.

For our own motheriand a junction of the two great systems, Hinduism and islamDVedanta brain and Islam body is the only hope.

I see in my mind’s eye the future perfect India rising out of this chaos and strife, glorious and invincible, with Vedanta brain and Islam body.

Secularism does not signify Anti-Religion. Secularism signifies giving equal dignity and respect to all religions. Of  course  it  goes without   saying that Indian State has no religion of its own, nor for that matter can any religion claim superiority over another religion as by resorting to false premise  that  any  religion  in  the  Country  is  indigenous  while  others are foreign. This is heresy not permitted by our constitution, which gives equal reverence to all the religions practiced by various communities of India.

Thus inclusive development in India and for that matter in any country alone is the path to prosperity. It is an undeniable truth and needs to be irrevocably accepted by all in India, namely that minorities, Muslims and Christians are not outsiders. They are an integral part of India. Let me quote what Swami Vivekanand one of the greatest spiritual personality of India has to say of the intimate connection between the spirit of Islam and Hinduism thus, “He also told Hindus not to talk of the superiority of one religion over another. Even toleration of other faiths was not right; it smacked of blasphemy. He pointed out that his guru, Sri Ramakrishna Paramhansa, had accepted all religions as true. Swami Vivekanand in fact profusely praised Islam and in a letter to his friend Mohammed Sarfraz Hussain (10th June 1898) without any hesitation wrote “therefore I am firmly persuaded that without the help of practical Islam, theories of vedantism, however fine and wonderful they may be are entirely valueless to the vast mass of mankind. For our own motherland a junction of the two great systems Hinduism and Islam – Vedanta brain and Islam body - is the only hope……. the future perfect India.”

Thus inclusive development in the country alone is the path to prosperity. It is an undeniable truth and needs to be irrevocably accepted by all in the country that minorities, Muslims and Christians are not outsiders. They are an integral part of India. There can be no real progress which does not include minorities, Muslims and Christians as equal stakeholders. I can not put it better than what Sir Sayyed Ahmed Khan, one of the greatest leader of our country had to say over a century back. Gandhiji repeated it in 1921, and also in another prayer meeting at Rajghat on 24th March 1947 thus; “In the words of Sir Sayyed Ahmed Khan……I would say that Hindus and Muslims are the two eyes of mother India just as the trouble in one eye affects the other too, similarly the whole of India suffer when either Hindu or Muslim suffer.”

Maulana Abul Kalam Azads clarion call emphasizes that composite culture is the bed rock of Indian Secularism pervading our country. He said thus;

“Just as a Hindu can say with pride that he is an Indian and follows Hinduism, so also we can say with equal pride that we are Indians and follow Islam. I shall enlarge this orbit still further. The Indian Christian is equally entitled to say with pride that he is an Indian and is following a religion of India, namely Christianity.”

If there are any Hindus amongst us who desire to bring back the Hindu life of a thousand years ago and more, they dream, and such dreams are vain fantasies. So also if there are any Muslims who wish to revive their past civilization and culture, which they brought a thousand years ago from Iran and Central Asia, they dream also and the sooner they wake up the better. These are unnatural fancies which cannot take root in the soil of reality. I am one of those who believe that revival may be a necessity in a religion but in social matters it is a denial of progress.”  

“I am proud to be a Muslim. Everything bears the stamp of our joint endeavour. Our languages were different, but we grew to use a common language. Our manners and customs were different, but they produced a new synthesis……. No fantasy or artificial scheming to separate and divide can break this unity – Islam has now as great a claim on the soil of India as Hinduism, and that is true of Christianity too”.



Rajindar Sachar

Monday 20 November 2017

बांग्लादेश में अल्पसंख्यकों के साम्प्रदायिक उत्पीड़न पर सोशलिस्ट पार्टी का बयान

17 नवम्बर 2017

प्रेस रिलीज़

बांग्लादेश में अल्पसंख्यकों के साम्प्रदायिक उत्पीड़न पर सोशलिस्ट पार्टी का बयान    

      सोशलिस्ट पार्टी का मानना है कि अल्पसंख्यक नागरिकों की धार्मिक पहचान के साथ जीवन, संपत्ति, सम्मान और व्यवसाय की पूरी हिफाजत करना हर राज्य का कर्तव्य है. साथ ही अल्पसंख्यक आबादी बिना किसी भय और भेदभाव के पूरे नागरिक अधिकारों के साथ स्वतंत्रता पूर्वक रह सके, यह सुनिश्चित करना भी राज्य की जिम्मेदारी है। आधुनिक राष्ट्र-राज्य की अवधारणा और संयुक्त राष्ट्र संघ के निर्देशों में यह बात अच्छी तरह स्पष्ट की गई है. लेकिन बांग्लादेश की सरकारें यह जिम्मेदारी निभाने में नाकाम रही हैं.

      दुनिया में हिंदू आबादी वाले तीन सबसे बड़े देशों में बांग्लादेश का नाम है. यहाँ भारत और नेपाल के बाद सबसे ज्यादा, क़रीब डेढ़ करोड़ हिंदू रहते हैं। लेकिन इस्लामी कट्टरपंथियों के लगातार हमलों और सरकार की नाकामी के चलते बांग्लादेश में हिंदू आबादी लगातार घट रही है. बांग्लादेश ब्यूरो ऑफ़ स्टेटिस्टिक्स के आंकड़ों के मुताबिक इसका कारण हिन्दुओं का बांग्लादेश से पलायन है. आंकड़ों के मुताबिक 1947 में तब के पूर्वी पाकिस्तान में क़रीब 28  फीसदी हिंदू आबादी थी। 1971 में बांग्लादेश बनने के बाद 1981 में वहां जो पहली जनगणना हुई उसमें हिंदू आबादी 12 फीसदी रह गई. इसके बाद 2011 की जनगणना के मुताबिक बांग्लादेश में करीब 9 फीसदी हिंदू बचे हैं.

      संयुक्त राष्ट्र संघ, भारत समेत दुनिया के कई देश, नागरिक अधिकार संस्थाएं और स्वतंत्र शोधकर्ता बांग्लादेश सरकार पर हिन्दुओं के खिलाफ जारी साम्प्रदायिक हिंसा को रोकने का दबाव डालते रहे हैं. लेकिन स्थिति में सुधार नहीं हो पा रहा है.  

      बांग्लादेश में अल्पसंख्यकों, खास तौर पर हिन्दुओं का उनकी धार्मिक पहचान के आधार पर उत्पीड़न करने की घटनाएं अक्सर होती हैं. 1971 में बांग्लादेश मुक्ति संग्राम के दौरान पाकिस्तानी सेना और इस्लामी साम्प्रदायिक तत्वों ने हिन्दुओं को हिंसा का खास निशाना बनाया. 1992 में अयोध्या स्थित बाबरी मस्जिद गिराए जाने पर बांग्लादेश में हिंदुओं के खिलाफ साम्प्रदायिक दंगे हुए. अंतर्राष्ट्रीय क्राइम्स ट्रिब्यूनल (आईसीटी) ने 2013 में ज़माते इस्लामी के उपाध्यक्ष हुसैन सईदी को युद्ध अपराधी करार देकर फांसी की सजा सुनाई. यह सजा उन्हें 1971 के युद्ध अपराधों के लिए सुनाई गई जिसमें कई लाख निर्दोष नागरिक, ज्यादातर हिन्दू, मारे गए थे. कट्टरपंथी इस्लामी तत्वों ने आईसीटी द्वारा दी गई सजा के लिए हिन्दुओं को ज़िम्मेदार ठहरा कर उनके खिलाफ 20 जिलों में बड़े पैमाने पर सांप्रदायिक हिंसा की. 2014 के आम चुनावों के दौरान अल्पसंख्यक हिन्दुओं पर साम्प्रदायिक हमले हुए. यह सिलसिला 2015, 2016 और  2017 में भी जारी रहता है. 

      फेसबुक पर डाली जाने वाली इस्लाम धर्म, पैगम्बर मुहम्मद और कुरआन की निंदा की तस्वीरों और टिप्पणियों के कारण हिन्दुओं के खिलाफ साम्प्रदायिक हिंसा का नया ट्रेंड देखने में आया है. 2012-13 से यह शुरुआत हुई और इसकी आंच बांग्लादेशी बौद्धों पर भी आई. 2012 में एक बौद्ध के नाम से डाली गई आपत्तिजनक फेसबुक पोस्ट की प्रतिक्रिया में करीब 25000 की भीड़ ने 22 बौद्ध मठों और 50 घरों को नष्ट कर दिया. ताज़ा उदाहरण फेसबुक पर लिखी एक आपत्तिजनक टिप्पणी है जिसके चलते 10 नवंबर 2017 को रंगपुर जिले के ठाकुरबाड़ी गांव में 30 से ज्यादा हिंदू परिवारों के घर जला दिए गए। इस तरह की ज्यादातर घटनाओं में माना गया है कि अल्पसंख्यकों को आसान निशाना बनाने के मकसद से इस्लामी कट्टरपंथी खुद फेसबुक के माध्यम का इस्तेमाल करते हैं.    

      अपने को धर्मनिरपेक्ष बताने वाली मौजूदा अवामो लीग सरकार अक्सर कहती है कि हिन्दुओं के खिलाफ हमले निहित राजनीतिक स्वार्थ के चलते कट्टरपंथी तत्व करते हैं. मीडिया और रपटों में इस्लामी कट्टरपंथी तत्वों को संगठित करने और बढ़ावा देने वालों में मुख्यत; जमाते इस्लामी (जेआई), उसके छात्र संगठन इस्लामी छात्र शिबिर (आईसीएस) और बांग्लादेश नेशनलिस्ट पार्टी (बीएनपी) का नाम लिया जाता है. ईसिस (ISIS) जैसे अंतर्राष्ट्रीय आतंकवादी संगठनों का नाम भी इसमें आता है. बीएनपी की नेता खालेदा जिया 2001 में जमाते इस्लामी के साथ गठबंधन सरकार चला चुकी हैं. हालाँकि जमात और बीएनपी दोनों हिन्दुओं के साम्प्रदायिक उत्पीड़न में अपनी संलिप्तता से इनकार करते हैं.
  
      विशेषज्ञ बांग्लादेश में अल्पसंख्यक हिन्दुओं पर हमलों के पीछे धार्मिक और राजनीतिक के अलावा आर्थिक कारण भी बताते हैं. उनके मुताबिक विशेष कर 'वेस्टेड प्रॉपर्टी एक्ट' (The Vested Property Act) ने सामाजिक और राजनीतिक रूप से प्रभावशाली बहुसंख्यक लोगों ने हिन्दुओं की ज़मीन पर कब्जा ज़माने की नीयत से कट्टरपंथी तत्वों को बढ़ावा दिया है.  

      सोशलिस्ट पार्टी का सत्तारूढ़ अवामी लीग और बांग्लादेश नेशनलिस्ट पार्टी, ज़माते इस्लामी समेत सभी विपक्षी राजनीतिक पार्टियों से आग्रह है कि वे अल्पसंख्यक नागरिकों के जीवन, संपत्ति, सम्मान और व्यवसाय की पूरी हिफाजत सुनिश्चित करें. ताकि हिन्दू, बौद्ध और ईसाई बिना भय और भेदभाव के पूरे नागरिक अधिकारों के साथ स्वतंत्रता पूर्वक अपने देश में रह सकें. साथ ही पार्टी की मांग है कि सरकार अभी तक की घटनाओं में संलिप्त अपराधियों को तुरंत गिरफ्तार कर सजा दे.

      सोशलिस्ट पार्टी आगाह करना चाहती है कि बांग्लादेश की यह स्थिति भारत के लिए एक सबक है. भारत के शासक वर्ग को भारतीय संविधान में उल्लिखित धर्मनिरपेक्षता के सिद्धांत का ईमानदारी से पालन करना चाहिये. दुर्भाग्य से मौजूदा सरकार में प्रधानमन्त्री और मुख्यमंत्री की हैसियत वाले नेता धर्मनिरपेक्षता की खुले आम अवमानना करते हैं. यहाँ तक कि खिल्ली उड़ाते हैं. यह देश और समाज के लिए बेहद खतरनाक स्थिति है. 1971 में बना बांग्लादेश 1972 में संवैधानिक रूप से धर्मनिरपेक्ष राज्य घोषित किया गया था. लेकिन फौजी तानाशाह जनरल इरशाद ने 1988 में इस्लाम को बांग्लादेश के राज्य धर्म का दर्ज़ा दिया जो बांग्लादेश के स्वतंत्रता आंदोलन के नारों - धर्मनिरपेक्षता और लोकतंत्र - के बिलकुल उलट था. मुहम्मद अली जिन्ना ने भी पकिस्तान को एक धर्मनिरपेक्ष लोकतान्त्रिक देश बनाने का फैसला किया था. लेकिन वहां की स्थिति सबके सामने है. सोशलिस्ट पार्टी का मानना है कि लोकतंत्र बिना धर्मनिरपेक्षता के नहीं चल सकता. भारत के लिए बांग्लादेश और पाकिस्तान इसके निकटतम उदाहरण हैं.  
   
डॉ. अभिजीत वैद्य
प्रवक्ता
मोबाइल : 9822090755 

Socialist Party's statement on communal persecution of minorities in Bangladesh

17 November 2017

Press release

Socialist Party's  statement on communal persecution of minorities in Bangladesh

            The Socialist Party believes that it is the duty of every state to fully protect life, property, dignity and business of minority citizens with their religious identity. It is also the responsibility of the state to ensure that the minority population can live freely enjoying full civil rights without any fear and discrimination. The very concept of modern nation-state and the instructions of the United Nations Organization (UNO) has made it very clear. But Bangladesh's governments have failed to fulfill this responsibility.

            Bangladesh is the third county in the world as far as the  Hindu population is concerned. Here the largest, about 1.5 crore, population of Hindus are living as citizens, after India and Nepal. But due to frequent attacks of Islamist fundamentalists and the failure of the government, the Hindu population is constantly declining in Bangladesh. According to the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, the reason for this that  the Hindus have been fleeing from Bangladesh. According to statistics, in 1947 there was about 28 percent Hindu population  in East Pakistan. In 1971, after the formation of Bangladesh, the first census was held in 1981, in which the Hindu population was 12 percent. After this, according to the 2011 census, there are about 9 percent Hindus left in Bangladesh.

          The United Nations, several countries of the world including India, civil rights organizations and independent researchers have been pressurizing the government of Bangladesh to stop communal violence against Hindus. But the situation is not  improving. 

            In Bangladesh, incidents of communal persecution of minorities, especially Hindus takes  place frequently. During the Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971, Pakistani army and Islamist communal elements specifically targeted  the Hindus. In 1992, after the demolition of Babri Masjid in Ayodhya, there were communal riots against Hindus in Bangladesh. International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) in 2013 awarded death sentence to Jamaat-e-Islami vice-president Hussain Sayeedi for committing war crimes in the war of 1971 in which millions of civilians, mostly Hindus, were killed. Radical Islamists have accused the Hindus for the punishment given by the ICT and a widespread communal violence against them was witnessed in 20 districts. There were communal attacks on minority Hindus during the 2014 general elections. This series continues in 2015, 2016 and 2017.

            The new trend of communal violence against Hindus has been seen due to pictures and comments perceived as blasphemy or defamation of Islam, Prophet Muhammad and Quran are uploaded on social site Facebook. This trend started from the year 2012 and its ire came to Bangladeshi Buddhists also. In reaction to a objectionable Facebook post allegedly uploaded by a Buddhist boy in 2012, a crowd of about 25,000 destroyed 22 Buddhist monasteries and 50  houses. The latest example is an objectionable post on Facebook that led to the burning of more than 30 Hindu houses in Thakurbadi village of Rangpur district on 10 November 2017. In most such incidents, it is believed that Islamist fundamentalists themselves use Facebook with an intention to make the minorities their easy target.

            The present Awami League government, which calls itself secular, often says that the attacks against Hindus made by fundamentalist elements are politically motivated. In the national/international media and other reports, mainly Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), its student organization Islamic Chhatra Shibir (ICS) and Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) are named for organizing and promoting Islamist fundamentalist elements. The name of international terrorist organizations like ISIS also comes in. BNP leader Khaleda  Zia formed a coalition government in 2001 with Jamaat-e-Islami. However, Jamaat and BNP both deny their involvement in communal persecution of Hindus.

            Experts also point out the economic reasons  behind the attacks on minority Hindus in Bangladesh, besides religious and political reasons. According to them, particularly due to 'The Vested Property Act', socially and politically influential people of the majority keep encouraging radical elements for communal unrest with the intention to grab the lands of Hindus.

            Socialist Party urges the ruling Awami League and all opposition political parties, particularly Bangladesh Nationalist Party and Jamaat-e-Islami, to ensure full security of life, property, dignity and business of minority citizens in Bangladesh. So that Hindus, Buddhists and Christians can live freely in their country enjoying full civil rights without any fear and discrimination. At the same time, the party demands that the government should immediately arrest and convict the criminals involved in the incidents of communal persecution.

            The Socialist Party would like to warn that the situation in Bangladesh is a lesson for India. The ruling class of India should follow the principle of secularism as outlined in the Indian Constitution. Unfortunately, the leaders of the stature of Prime Minister and Chief Minister in the present government openly show contempt to and ridicule the principal of secularism. This is a very dangerous situation for the country and society. Bangladesh, created in 1971, was declared  constitutionally as a secular state in 1972. But military dictator General Irshad made  Islam the state religion of Bangladesh in 1988 which was totally contrary to the slogans of Bangladesh's freedom movement - secularism and democracy. Muhammad Ali Jinnah also decided to make Pakistan a secular democratic country. But the situation there is obvious for everyone to see . The Socialist Party believes that democracy cannot run without secularism. Bangladesh and Pakistan are the closest examples for India.

Dr. Abhijit Vaidya
Spokesperson
Mobile: 9822090755

Wednesday 15 November 2017

NEHRU’S ROLE IN INDIA

NEHRU’S ROLE IN INDIA

Rajindar Sachar


Reverence and hero worship for Jawaharlal Nehru was normal not only with the older generation but with our generation as well. My father, Bhim Sen Sachar was a Congressman in 1937 he was elected to the Punjab Legislative Assembly. Nehru campaigned for my father in that election. Even though I was just 14, I got ample opportunity to have a close view of him at meetings and functions.

In May 1949, the Socialist Party under Ram Manohar Lohia’s leadership held a demonstration in front of the Nepal embassy in New Delhi to protest against the Rana government in the Himalayan kingdom. We were arrested (about 50 of us including Lohia) for violating Section 144 CRPC  and remained in jail for a month and a half. It was during that imprisonment that Nehru and Indira sent a basket of mangoes to Lohia. Sardar Patel wrote to Nehru expressing his annoyance for sending mangoes to a person in jail who had violated the law. Nehru in his quiet way told him that politics and personal relationships are two separate things and should not be mixed up.

In 1952, the Congress returned to power with a clear majority in the Punjab Assembly elections. Nehru and Azad appointed my father as the leader of the Congress party and he again became the Chief Minister of Punjab, which then comprised of present-day Haryana and Himachal Pradesh.

Political morality was very high amongst the leaders of 1950s. For instance, when the governor of Punjab invited Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit as a guest for a vacation in Simla (then capital of Punjab) in 1954, she was put up in the government guest house and a bill of Rs. 2064 was sent to the governor because she was his guest. The governor however, didn’t pay the bill and the chief engineer brought this to the notice of my father. On his next visit to Delhi in May 1955, my father brought that matter to Nehru’s notice. Imagine a cm is discussing a small amount of money with his leader. But father was very strict on his principles. And Nehru’s response was equally commendable. He opened his drawer and wrote a cheque of 1000 and said: “I am giving this now. I am going to Europe and once I come back I will pay the remaining amount.” Later on, the governor was so ashamed that he paid the balance from his discretionary fund.

I myself had a personal experience in 1955 when I was the chairperson of the Socialist Party (Punjab) and the general secretary of the Punjab High Court Bar Association. In 1955, the Punjab High Court was shifting from Simla to Chandigarh. It was to be inaugurated by Nehru and he had come to Chandigarh the evening before. My father, who was then the Chief Minister of Punjab, invited Nehru for an informal breakfast at our residence. I was staying with my father though my office was in another sector. It was a rare occasion for a young man like me, who admired Nehru a lot. But, I had grown up by then. Our party was convinced (rightly or wrongly, time alone will tell) that Nehru, who had shown the vision of socialism to us, had not kept that pace following wrong policies. Our differences with his policies were deep. I was a small fry in part of that milieu. So I told my father that I will not be at the breakfast table to receive Nehru, though my wife will be there along with my mother to play the hostess. My father and I had a beautiful understanding and respected each other’s view. He realised my reluctance but mentioned that I was being childish.

I went to my office before Nehru arrived. I continued to admire Nehru and I could not think of being at home and be rude by not joining him for breakfast. Of course, we received Nehru with all the dignity and deference due to him when he came to the high court inauguration.

Now I laugh at my presumptuousness — a chit of boy, whom Nehru will not even notice beating his chest by not attending and denying himself a rare close breakfast meeting with one of the greatest of leaders of India and who had been a hero of our family. But then I take it as the peculiarities of a radical youth, the devil I may I care attitude and the almost fatalistic belief in the rightness of the cause of one’s own party. But then I believe that is the real difference between youth and old age – one may laugh now, but one does not demean conduct because at that time it represented what I like to feel was a youthful, genuine and unshakeable faith in socialism – which fortunately, I have still not lost.

Nehru was indeed doing some inner thinking and so expressed it to Maulana Azad thus: “we should do something for Sachar”. He soon appointed father as the governor of Orissa in 1956 and wrote to the Chief Minister saying “Your governor is a very good administrator and you will find him so.”

Father thereafter left active politics and engaged himself in the Khadi movement. But his spirit of freedom was still strong as ever when he wrote to Indira Gandhi during the Emergency reminding her of what Nehru had said about total freedom of the press.
New Delhi
July 23, 1975

Bhim Sen Sachar 
 “To my mind, the freedom of the press is not just a slogan from the larger point of view but it is an essential attribute of the democratic process. I have no doubt that even if the Government dislikes the liberties taken by the Press and considers them dangerous it is wrong to interfere with the freedom of the Press. By imposing restriction you do not change anything; you merely suppress the public manifestation of certain things, thereby causing the idea and thought underlying them to spread further. Therefore, I would rather have a completely free Press with all the dangers involved in the wrong use of that freedom than a suppressed or regulated Press.”
We must respond to the call. Accordingly we propose, with effect from August 9, 1975 and regardless of consequences to ourselves, to advocate openly the right of public speech and public association and freedom of the Press, for discussing the merits and demerits of the Government arming itself with extraordinary powers.
Yours faithfully,
Bhim Sen Sachar & Ors.


         
Father was arrested soon, and released because his Habeas Corpus petition was accepted by High Court.

Rajindar Sachar

What is RSS?


What is RSS? 

Madhu Limaye.
I entered in political life in 1937. I was quite young then but as I had passed my matriculation examination at a relatively early age, I also entered college quite early. Quite active in Pune in those days were the RSS and the Savarkarites (followers of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar) on the one hand and nationalist, socialist and leftist political organisations on the other. On May 1, 1937 we took out a march to observe May Day. The marchers were attacked by the RSS and Savarkarites when, among others, the well-known revolutionary Senapati Bapat and our socialist leader, SM Joshi, were injured. We have had serious differences with these Hindutva organisations ever since.

Our first difference with the RSS was over the issue of nationalism. We believed that every citizen had equal rights in the Indian nation. But the RSS and the Savarkarites came up with their notion of Hindu Rashtra. Mohammad Ali Jinnah too was a victim of a similar world view. He believed that India was made up of two nations, the Muslim nation and the Hindu nation. Savarkar too said the same thing.

The other major difference between us was that we dreamt of the birth of a democratic republic while the RSS claimed that democracy was a western concept that was not appropriate for India. In those days members of the RSS were full of praise for Adolf Hitler. Guruji (Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar) was not only the sarsanghchalak (head) of the RSS; he was its ideological guru as well.

There is amazing similarity between the thoughts of Guruji and the Nazis. One of Guruji’s books, we or Our Nationhood Defined, ran into several editions, its fourth edition having been published in 1947. At one point in the book, Guruji says, “The non-Hindu people in Hindustan must adopt the Hindu culture and language, must learn to respect and hold in reverence Hindu religion, must entertain no ideas but those of the glorification of the Hindu race and culture i.e. they must not only give up their attitude of intolerance and ungratefulness towards this land and its age-old traditions but must also cultivate the positive attitude of love and devotion instead – in a word, they must cease to be foreigners, 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.”

In other words, Guruji wanted to see millions of Indians treated as non-citizens. He wanted all their citizenship rights taken away. Incidentally, these ideas of his were not newly formulated. From the time we were in college (in the mid-1930s), members of the RSS were inclined to follow Hitlerian ideals. In their view, Muslims and Christians in India deserved to be treated the same way that Hitler
treated Jews in Germany.

The extent of Guruji’s sympathies for the views of the Nazi Party is evident from the following passage from ‘we or Our Nationhood Defined: “To keep up the purity of the race and its culture, Germany shocked the world by her purging the country of the Semitic races – the Jews. Race 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” (We or Our Nationhood Defined, 1947, p. 42).

You might say that this is an old book, of a time when India was in the throes of the struggle for independence. But then there is his second book, Bunch of Thoughts. I cite below an example from this “popular publication” which was brought out in November 1966. In this book, while discussing India’s internal security problem, Guruji identifies three internal dangers. One is Muslims, the second Christians and the third Communists. In Guruji’s view, every Indian Muslim, every Christian and every Communist is a danger to the nation’s security. Such is his ideology.

Our second major difference with Guruji and the RSS has to do with the caste question. They are supporters of the caste system while a socialist like me is its greatest enemy. I consider myself to be the biggest enemy of Brahmanism and the caste system. I am of the firm view that there can be no economic and social equality in India until the caste system and the inequalities based on it are demolished.

But Guruji says, “Another unique feature of our society was the varna vyavastha (caste system, the former occupation-based classification of society) which is today vilified as jati pratha (a rigid caste system).” He adds, “Society was conceived of in the image of an all-powerful god, of four aspects, who was to be worshipped by different people in their own ways as determined by their different capabilities. The Brahmin was considered great because he was the purveyor of knowledge. The Kshatriya was considered equally great because he destroyed the enemies. The Vaishya was no less important than others because through agriculture and commerce he fulfilled a social need. The Sudra too was important for he served society through his workmanship.” Here it is very shrewdly being asserted that through his workmanship the Sudra is fulfilling an important social need. But Chanakya’s Arthashastra, from which Guruji takes his inspiration, clearly states that it is the religious duty of the Sudras to serve the Brahmins, the Kshatriyas and the Vaishyas. In a clever subterfuge, Guruji replaces service of the upper castes with “service of society”.

The fourth issue on which we differ is that of language. We are in favour of promoting the languages of the people. All regional languages, after all, are indigenous. But what does Guruji have to say on this? Guruji says that for now Hindi should be made the common language for all while the ultimate objective should be to make Sanskrit the national language. He says in his Bunch of Thoughts, “For convenience, Hindi should be given primacy as our link language until such time as Sanskrit is adopted as our national language.” Thus Hindi is merely for convenience, the ultimate link language is to be Sanskrit.

We have had differences over this right from the start. Like Mahatma Gandhi and Lokmanya Tilak, we too have always been in favour of the regional languages. We do not wish to impose Hindi on anyone. We would like to see Tamil as the prevalent language in Tamil Nadu, Telugu in Andhra Pradesh, Marathi in Maharashtra and Bengali in West Bengal. If the non-Hindi speaking states wish to adopt English, it should be up to them. We have no differences with them on this. But Sanskrit is the language of a handful of people, the language of a particular caste. Making Sanskrit the national language means the supremacy of a handful of people over others, something we definitely do not want.

Fifth, the national movement for independence had accepted the idea of a federal state. In a confederation, the centre would definitely have certain powers on specific matters but all others would be a subject matter for the states. But following partition, in a bid to strengthen the centre, the Constitution stipulated a concurrent list. As per this list, several subjects were made concurrent, subjects over which both the centre and the states have equal jurisdiction. What was originally meant to be under the domain of different states was included in the concurrent list only to strengthen the centre. Thus the federal state came into existence.

But the RSS and its chief ideologue, Guru Golwalkar, have been consistently opposed to this basic constitutional provision. These people ridicule the very concept of ‘a union of states’ and maintain that this Constitution, which envisages a confederation of states, should be abolished. Guruji says in his Bunch of Thoughts, “The Constitution must be reviewed and the idea of a unitary state should be written into the new Constitution.” Guruji wants a unitary or, in other words, a centralised state. He says that this system of states should be done away with. What he wants is one nation, one state, one legislature and one executive. In other words, he wants to abolish state legislatures and state ministries. That means they wish to see the rule of the stick. If they were to capture power, they would doubtless bring into existence a centralised state.

Another issue was the tricolour, the flag chosen by the national movement. Hundreds of Indians sacrificed their lives, thousands bore the brunt of lathis for the honour and glory of our chosen national flag. But surprisingly, the RSS has never accepted the tricolour as the national flag. It always swore by the saffron flag, asserting that the saffron flag has been the flag of Hindu Rashtra since time immemorial.

Just as Guruji rejected the concept of a federal state, similarly, he had no faith in a democratic system. He was of the firm view that democracy is a concept imported from the West and the system of parliamentary democracy did not jell with Indian thought and Indian civilization. As for socialism, that for him was a totally alien idea. He repeatedly said that all isms, including socialism and democracy,  were alien ideas which should be rejected, that Indian society should be founded on Indian culture. Speaking for ourselves, we believe in parliamentary democracy, in socialism, and we aspire to establish socialism consistent with Gandhian principles in India through peaceful means.

While we were engaged in a struggle against the Congress party’s autocratic rule, our leader, Dr Rammanohar Lohia, was of the opinion that we should join hands with all opposition forces to save the nation and dislodge from power the Congress party which was responsible for our humiliation at the hands of the Chinese. I had lengthy discussions with Doctor Lohia on the issue. This debate went on for two years. I kept insisting throughout that we cannot have any alliance with the RSS and the Jan Sangh. Ultimately, Doctor Sahib asked me, “Do you accept my leadership or not?” I replied, “Yes, I do.” He said it wasn’t necessary for us to agree on every issue or for him to have to convince me on every issue. Let there be an issue or two on which we disagreed. And since he was only thinking of a political alliance to defeat a major enemy, I should cooperate with him, let his idea be given a “trial”. Perhaps he would be proven right, he said, perhaps I would. I remained convinced however that a clash between the RSS and the Lohiaite ideologies was inevitable.

It is a fact that we formed an alliance with these people (RSS and Jan Sangh) when Mrs. Indira Gandhi imposed the emergency.Lok Nayak Jaiprakashji believed that if the opposition did not unite under the banner of a single party it would be impossible to defeat Mrs. Gandhi. Choudhary Charan Singh was also of the view that we should come together and form a united party. While we were in jail, we were all asked to give our opinions on the need to form such a party and contest elections. I recall sending a message that in my view we must contest elections. 

Millions of people would participate in elections. Elections are a dynamic process. As the electoral tempo builds up, the shackles of emergency are bound to snap and people are bound to exercise their democratic right. Therefore, I stressed, we must participate in elections.

Since Lok Nayak Jaiprakash Narain and other leaders were of the view that without coming together under the banner of one party we could not succeed, we (socialists) too gave it our consent. But I would like to stress that the understanding that was arrived at was between political parties – the Jan Sangh, the Socialist Party, the Congress (O), the Bharatiya Lok Dal (BLD) and some dissident Congress factions. We did not come to any arrangement with the RSS, nor did we accept any of its demands. What is more, through a letter by Manubhai Patel that was circulated among all of us in jail we learnt that on July 7, 1976 Choudhary Charan Singh had raised the issue of a possible clash of interests because of dual membership when members of the RSS also became members of the new party. In response, the then acting general secretary of the Jan Sangh, Om Prakash Tyagi had said that the proposed party should feel free to formulate whatever membership criteria it wanted. He even said that since the RSS, having faced many constraints had been dissolved anyway, the question of RSS membership did not arise.

Later, when the constitution of the proposed Janata Party was being drawn up, the subcommittee appointed to draft the constitution proposed that members of any organisation whose aims, policies and programmes were in conflict with the aims, policies and programmes of the Janata Party should not be given membership to the new party. Given the self-evident meaning of such a membership criterion, there was no question of anyone opposing it. However, it is significant that the sole opposition to this came from Sunder Singh Bhandari (Jan Sangh). At a meeting convened in December 1976 to thrash out issues, reference was made to a letter written by Atal Bihari Vajpayee on behalf of the Jan Sangh and the RSS, stating that a section of leaders of the proposed party had agreed that the RSS issue could not be raised in connection with membership of the Janata Party. But several leaders told me that no such assurances were given because the RSS was nowhere in the picture at the time when the idea of a merger of opposition political parties was mooted. I want to clarify that I was in prison at the time and even if there was some secret understanding, I had no part in it.

I can categorically assert that the election manifesto of the Janata Party did not in any way reflect the concerns of the RSS. In fact, each point in the manifesto was clearly spelt out. Is it not a fact that the manifesto of the Janata Party spoke of a socialist society based on secular, democratic and Gandhian principles and in which there was no mention of Hindu Rashtra? The manifesto also assured the minorities equal citizenship rights and vowed to safeguard their rights. In contrast, Guruji wanted to deny equal citizenship rights to the minorities and wanted them to be subservient subjects in a Hindu Rashtra. The Janata Party was committed to decentralisation while Guruji was a hardcore proponent of centralisation. He wanted to abolish separate states, abolish state legislatures and ministries while the Janata Party emphasized the need for greater decentralisation. In other words, the Janata Party had no desire to snatch away the autonomy of states. The manifesto spoke of socialism, social justice and equality. Did the manifesto state that it upholds the caste system? Did it maintain that the Sudras’ duty was to devote their life in the service of others? On the contrary, the manifesto not only promised that the backward castes would have full opportunity to progress, it pledged special policies for them: 25-33 per cent reservation for them in government jobs.

Yes, it is true that members of the RSS did not genuinely accept the provisions of the party’s election manifesto. It was my contention and I had once even complained in writing to Kushabhau Thakre that during discussions you people (RSS, Jan Sangh) very readily agree on matters that you at heart totally disagree with. That is why your motives are suspect. I wrote this letter to him a long time ago and I have always had doubts about the RSS. I have had these doubts since Doctor Sahib’s time (Dr Rammanohar Lohia died in 1967). But despite this, the fact remains that to Mrs. Indira Gandhi we entered into a political alliance with them.

Since it was Lok Nayak Jaiprakashji’s desire that all parties should merge for a united opposition to dictatorship and since the party manifesto did not make any compromises, I consented to our coming together. At the same time, I would like to say that from the beginning I was very clear in my mind that to emerge as a unified and a credible body the Janata Party would have to do two things. One, the RSS would have to change its ideology and accept the ideal of a secular democratic state. Two, the various organisations that are part of the sangh parivar, such as the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh and the Vidyarthi Parishad, would have to dissolve themselves and merge with the secular-minded trade union and student wings of the Janata Party. I was very clear about this from the beginning and as the Janata Party had given me the responsibility to manage the affairs of its trade union and student wings, it was my consistent attempt throughout to ensure that the Vidyarthi Parishad and the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh ended their separate existence.

But these people started insisting on their autonomy. In fact, these organisations always function on the dictates of Nagpur (RSS headquarters), they believe in the one leader principle. Take, for example, Guruji himself. Guruji maintained that they create a mind-set which is totally disciplined and where people accept whatever they tell them. This organisation operates on a single principle: one leader. They do not believe in democracy, they have no faith in discussions and debate. They have no economic policy. For example, in his ‘Bunch of Thoughts’, Guruji expressed unhappiness over the abolition of the zamindari system in India. Guruji was deeply saddened, deeply disturbed by the abolition of the zamindari system. But he felt no compassion for the poor.

I told members of the RSS that you must abandon your ideal of organising Hindus alone and find a place for people of all religions within your organisation, that you must merge your different class- based organisations with those of the Janata Party. They responded by saying that this could not be done so soon, that there were very many difficulties involved but they did want to change, bit by bit. They continued to give such evasive replies.

From their behaviour I concluded that they had no intention of changing. Especially after the assembly elections of June 1977, when they managed to gain power in four states and one union territory, after which they began to think that with this newly acquired clout they had no need to change. Now that they had already captured four states, they would gradually also gain control of other states and finally even the centre. The leaders of other political parties in the Janata Party were older leaders who would not live long; and they would ensure that no younger (non-RSS, non-Jan Sangh) leader emerged at the top.

As is evident from the pages of the Organiser and Panchjanya (RSS mouthpieces in English and Hindi), they have not spared a single Janata Party leader who is not from their parivar. I, of course, was their special favourite, the target of special attention. They probably devoted more column space to abusing me than they did even for Mrs. Indira Gandhi.

For a protracted period I persisted in dialogue with these people. I recall an occasion when Balasaheb Deoras (later RSS sarsanghchalak) visited me at my residence in Mumbai. Subsequently, I met him once again after the 1971 polls. I also had discussions with Madhavrao Mule once before the emergency. On the fourth occasion, I met Balasaheb Deoras and Madhavrao Mule together in May 1977. So no one can claim that I made no attempt to talk to them. But I finally reached the conclusion that they have closed minds in which no new idea can germinate.

On the contrary, the RSS specialises in casting young minds in a particular mould from a very young age. The first thing they do is ‘freeze’ the minds of children and of youth, making them impervious. After this they are rendered incapable of responding to other ideas.

Still, I tried. On one occasion I convened a meeting of all trade union leaders. The representatives of all constituents of the Janata Party attended but the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh boycotted the meeting. Not just that, they hurled abuses at me for no apparent reason. Similar efforts were made with the Vidyarthi Parishad and the Yuva Morcha but despite all attempts at a merger, they held aloof. This is only because of the RSS’ desire to function as a “super party”.

Their aim is not only to enter into every aspect of people’s life but also to control it. In an article written for The Indian Express around that time, George Fernandes used the example of Dattopant Thengdi to make the same point. Thengdi responded by saying that the RSS intended to have all of society under its sway, it would leave no aspect of a person’s life untouched, it would establish its hegemony in every department of life. Thengdi, of course, was saying nothing new. Similar views have been repeatedly asserted by Guruji in his We or Our Nationhood Defined, as also in Bunch of Thoughts. No totalitarian organisation allows any space for freedom, its tentacles reach everywhere: art, music, economy, culture. This is the essence of any fascist organisation.

The fact is that the RSS wanted to capture the Janata Party and through it to take control of the state apparatus. For this they simultaneously dangled the carrot of the prime minister’s chair before several Janata Party leaders. On the one hand, they went on assuring Morarji Desai to the end that he was their choice for prime minister. Every now and then they would promise Choudhary Charan Singh that they would support his claim to be prime minister. Concurrently, they kept giving similar assurances to Chandra Shekhar, Jagjivan Ram and George Fernandes. Not once did they dare to make me a similar offer. When I once jokingly mentioned this to Vajpayee, he quipped, “Why you, Nanaji (Deshmukh) has never made me such a promise either. They want neither you nor me as prime minister.” Anyway, they never made any such suggestion to me, knowing only too well that I would not deny others their due nor would I allow others to deny mine. Perhaps they think, you can’t fool this man so what’s the point of promising him anything – it will only make him (Limaye) even more cautious. 

What these people (the RSS) do on the odd occasion is however of little importance. Has the RSS ever said that they have abandoned Guruji’s way of thinking? Only Atalji says that we should all accept the principles of composite nationalism, democracy, socialism, social justice, etc because we cannot move forward without them in today’s world. But Atalji is the only one who says this. I do not trust the other sanghis. These people pleaded for pardon while in prison, Balasaheb Deoras congratulated Indira Gandhi when the Supreme Court ruled in her favour in the Raj Narain case. So I have no faith in the utterances of these people. I am of the firm belief that I could only have trusted these people (erstwhile Jan Sangh leaders in the Janata Party) if they had ousted RSS leaders from the party, expelled them from the working committee, placed restrictions on RSS activities and, in particular, expelled people like Nanaji Deshmukh, Sunder Singh Bhandari and company from the party.


(Translated by Javed Anand.)

(May 1st marks the birth anniversary of senior socialist leader, the late Madhu Limaye. The above piece, penned by Madhu Limaye soon after the split in the Janata Party, was published by the Hindi weekly, Ravivar, in 1979. Though dated, many of the issues he raises in the article are relevant even today).


New Posts on SP(I) Website

लड़खड़ाते लोकतंत्र में सोशलिस्ट नेता मधु लिमए को याद करने के मायने आरोग्य सेतु एप लोगों की निजता पर हमला Need for Immediate Nationalisation ...