We reproduce below a communication received from Karnataka Rajya Vicharavadi Okkootta (Federation of Karnataka State Rationalist Associations):
Federation of Karnatka State Rationalist Associations (Karnataka Rajya Vicharavadi Okkootta) is organizing the 1st state level rationalist conference at SHRAVANABELOGOLA on 18th & 19th of May 2012.
As you are aware, a get-together of more than 100 rationalist and humanist activists and sympathizers was held on March 14, 2010 in Bangalore. It was decided at the meeting to form a Federation of rationalist and humanist groups active in various districts of Karnataka in order to coordinate the activities of these groups at the state level. Subsequently, during the last two years, our activists visited about 22 districts of the state and held meetings with various groups and individuals. Those districts which we could not cover, we got in touch with activists over telephone.
To keep up the momentum generated through these contacts, to consolidate the gains and to build up the organization further, it has been decided to organize the first state conference of the Federation at Shravanebelogola on 18th & 19th of May 2012. In order to make the conference a grand success, we request your participation.
VENUE:
MANJUNATHA KALYANA MANTAPA (Near Bus Stand)
SHRAVANABELOGOLA,
Hassan District
Delegate Fee: Rs: 200/- only
(Towards accommodation, on 18th night. lunch, tea, & dinner & breakfast &lunch on 18th &19th respectively)
Delegates can sent the delegate fee of Rs.200/- by ECS transfer to
Srinivas Natekar SB A/c No. 007201016498
Corporation Bank, Shravanabelogola
IFSC Code: CORP0000072
For Programme Details, the delegates may contact any of the following persons
B.V.V. Subbarao (Bangalore) - Mobile: 9886679088; Land Line: 080 -41476288
Srinivas Natekar (Shravanabelogola) - Mobile: 9844614676; Land Line: 08176-257875
I welcome the Karnataka conference and this is timely. We
need to inculcate scientific attitude among students and youth which
will take society in to future development. Today the reactionary
forces gained upper hand and set the rational cloack backwards. The
child abuse of inculcating religion to the kids from childhood onward should be stopped.
Innaiah Narisetti
USA
Wed, May 9, 2012 at 3:42 PM
***
Thanks for the invitation.
I am happy to know about the conference and I wish the conference all success.We are also celebrating the national conference at Hyderabad on 9th and 10th June 2012.I am forwarding the message to our friends.
Section 295A. Deliberate
and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings or any class by
insulting its religion or religious beliefs
[295A. Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious
feelings or any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.— Whoever,
with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of
any class of [citizens of India], [by words, either spoken or written, or by
signs or by visible representations or otherwise], insults or attempts to
insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to [three
years], or with fine, or with both.]
This
section of the IPC pertains to insulting religions and religious beliefs.
Made by our colonial masters to divide and subjugate their vassals, like many
other provisions of the archaic laws made by them, this section too has been
carried over into our laws and is being used now mainly to persecute and hound
people who may have points of view contrary to those of the powers that be. The
rationalist movement and other progressive forces have been mostly at the
receiving end of persecutions under this but the others have been no exception.
The word 'persecution' has been deliberately used here as most of the cases
booked under this section have resulted in acquittals of the accused and all
they have had as punishment is the period of the 'due process of law' which can
take several years to couple of decades to complete.
Sanal Edamaruku
The
recent one in this issue is the attempt to prosecute a rationalist from Delhi, Sanal Edmaruku. He
has been quite active on the TV channels denouncing superstitions and god men
on them and has been a regular feature on many of them. The most recent
controversy in which he has been involved is the one of a cement crucifix of
Jesus Christ in Bandra, Mumbai dripping water from its feet. There were hot
discussions of some TV channels about the veracity of this so called miracle
and there were some hot exchange of words in between him and others leading to
complaints against him under the above mentioned section 295A of the Indian
Penal Code for deliberate and malicious acts leading to outrage religious
feelings of any class here read as the Roman Catholic community. Again, the act
does not pertain to the miracle of the dripping cross but other words used in
the course of the discussions which have outraged the religious feelings of a
group of people called as The Organisation of Concerned Catholics (OCC) and the
Catholic Secular Forum (CSF) who had lodged complaints against Sanal at
the Juhu and Andheri police stations. It was said that Sanal’s contentions that
the so called 'miracle' was promoted by the church to fleece gullible people
and the prefix used for the head of the Roman Catholic church by calling him
Mr. Pope had angered these Catholics who chose to file this complaint. It was
in the newspapers that the Mumbai have summoned Mr. Edamaruku for questioning
on this complaint. A committee to defend him under the leadership of the
eminent Supreme court lawyer Mr.N.D,.Pancholi has been formed and funds are
being collected from all over the world for his defense.
Karantikar (left) with Telugu Revolutionary Folk Singer Gaddar
It is not
the first time that this section is being used or that Sanal Edamaruku is the
first one to be hauled up under this. A couple of years back Krantikar, State President of Andra Pradesh Rationalist Association and Executive Committee Member of Federation of Indian Rationalist Associations had been hauled up under the same sections and had
been in prison for quite some time as he had refused to apply for bail. His
crime - he had translated some write ups of Taslima Nasreen which had been
published more than decade back and were available to the world at large on the
web into Telugu and had published that in book form, which had again angered
the local fundamentalist Muslims who were after his blood. The ruling congress
party in the state had brought all these sections upon him to please their so
called 'minority vote bank'! The way it was done it was pretty obvious that the
case would be thrown out by the court but the 'persecution' part of it was more
important for the govt.!
Just at
the time of the Sanal case hitting the headlines a student of Hyderabad, Kartik had been arrested on the
same grounds for reacting that there is no god to someone who had greeted him
on Hanuman Jayanthi day. He had been arrested and was in police custody for
having expressed his convictions and exercising his constitutional right!
Again, the same law was used by a right wing student organisation to target a
member of a rival organisation. The saffron gangs are experts in using this law
to harass those who do not see eye to eye with them. In fact, they used it to
file complaints against those who organised and participated in a 'beef festival'
on the campus of OsmaniaUniversity recently.
Though one's dietary habits are one's personal business, one mans food can be
another one's religious sentiment! So, people could file complaints under
section 295A for eating beef (Hindu religious sentiments), Pork (Muslim
religious sentiments), any non vegetarian food (Jain religious sentiments) and
so on ad infinitum! It could be also argued that even the menus of hotels are
publications which are deliberately and maliciously composed to hurt them and
so on.
Like many
of the archaic laws made by our colonial masters have been relegated to the
dust bin in their country, this law too deserves the same fate. In fact it has
been advised by them that we should do so! Yet, we choose to have these which are
an affront to the very concept of human rights. If a person has the right to
propagate one's religion we should also have the right to question the same.
All the religions thrive by striking the fear of the unknown into the minds of
people and by spreading superstitious beliefs and questioning any of them
would be construed as hurting the religious sentiments and cases filed under
section 295A! If those who do so are members of a movement like ours then it
could be added that the intent was 'malicious and deliberate'!
I can
recall some instances from the past when we have been threatened with this.
About a decade ago, I had made a public statement about cows urine being the
urine of animal like any other- for instance a dog! At that time a campaign was
started by the peddlers of the concoctions containing cow’s urine that it was
an attack on the religious sentiments and I should be booked under this
section. A big debate went on for weeks and finally a legal luminary concluded
it by saying that though I deserved to be punished under that it could not be
done as I was born in a Hindu family! If I were to be born in a family
professing some other religion then I could have been prosecuted! He also added
that criticism and reform was a salient feature of Hinduism! So, the whole
controversy died a natural death. We have been threatened with the same when we
questioned faith healers of Christianity- the excuse was that they were just
conducting prayer meetings! The same was threatened when we exposed one Aslam
Baba who was supposedly conducting surgical operations with tailor’s scissors!
A couple of years ago when we had tried to investigate Mary's flex prints
shedding tears we had to struggle very hard to keep out any such allegations of
'hurting religious sentiments' !
Does this
law have a role in our society? Well let us take a look at article 51 A H of
the constitution of India
which deals with the duties of the citizen it states that-51A. Fundamental
duties It shall be the duty of every citizen of India (h)to develop the
scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform. With a
constitution which states this and with a section of the IPC which is contrary
it is the article of the constitution which should prevail.
Hulikkal Nataraj
This has
been also stated in the Hulikal Nataraj vs Govt of Karnataka judgment of the
Karnataka High court. In this case a case was filed against him for making a
statement at a placed called Madikeri in Kodagu district of Karnataka. He had
stated in a public lecture that the so called miracle at Sabarimala at the
Aiyappa temple area was man made. It was about a flame called as Makara vilakku
from a hill called as Ponnambala Medu which was opposite the temple. The locals
who wanted to hound him and harass him had filed a complaint with the local
police station and the station house officer had straightaway filed an FIR and
a charge sheet and tried to arrest Nataraj who had gone to the High Court for
quashing the case. After a couple of years the judgment came as an indictment of
the whole system. In fact the judge called the Home secretary to the court and
also withheld the increment of the Sub Inspector who had attempted to arrest
Nataraj.
A couple of years back when we
had tried to investigate the phenomenon of flex prints of Mary shedding ‘tears’
at the church in Aluva, Kerala there were attempts to convert that too as clash
between various sections and to convert it into a outraging religious
sentiments issue as in the case of Sanal mentioned above. But, we were very
careful in our approach that nothing much could be done.
Such laws like section 295 A of
the Indian Penal Code have no place in a civilized society and need to be
consigned with many of such to the trash bins of history. Finally after mulling
over the legal issues and the secular aspects of the law, a philosophical
question needs to be addressed- why does an omnipotent deity need the services
of a mundane law made by puny human beings to set right alleged infractions of
divine laws made by a higher force? This is for the religious whose feelings
are ‘offended’ to answer!
We publish this essay by Justice RA Jahagirdahr (1927-2011) on the
Hindutvaideologue Vinayak Damodar Savarkar in the context of the 8th National Conference
of Federation of Indian Rationalist Associations (FIRA) held in Nagapur on 11-12
February 2012. The official souvenir brought out during the conference had a
photograph of Vinayak Savarkar with the astonishing remark that the
rationalists cannot forget his contributions to humanity. This attempt to put this Hindutva
ideologue, who in fact coined the word “Hindutva”, on a rationalist pedestal is
nothing but reprehensible. Despite the enormous quantity of literature
available today conclusively establishing that Savarkar was a rabid Hindu
communalist, it is surprising that some ‘rationalists’ still project Savarkar
as their leader. What was still more surprising was that the entire FIRA
leadership did not make even a murmur against this crude attempt on the part of
the local host (Akhil Bharatiya
Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti) of the conference to use the FIRA platform
to project their ideology. It is in this
background that we publish this essay by the late Justice RA Jahagirdhar (1927-2011).
Courtesy: Collected Works of Justice
R.A. Jahagirdar (Retd) (1927-2011)published by Rationalist Foundation, Pune. The book can be downloaded at http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/
It is generally be1ieved that Savarkar was a rationalist,
despite his belief in Hindutva. He advised the general public of India, more particularly
Hindus that Vedas, Upanishads and Puranas are good literature but
not guides. They should be kept in the cupboard as pieces to look good. Even
Bhagwad Gita allegedly dictated by Lord Krishna was a piece of literature and
only expounded what he regarded as a good guide. It described four phases of
man and we are free to follow any one as the pathway to God. In short, he did not
believe in the supernatural.
Vinayak Savarkar
On these and other grounds Maharashtra Andhashraddha
Nirmoolan Samiti has hailed him as a great social reformer of Maharashtra.
If one reads the piece on Savarkar, he is in fact, regarded as a rationalist of
Maharashtra on par with Gadge Maharaj, who tried to teach people to clean Maharashtra - even personally sweeping the land and
bylanes of the city and villages. He in his own language admonished the people
to lead a personal good life. Gadge Maharaj never invoked God for the social
reform he preached and in fact did not personally practice any rituals. He took
a broom in his hand and set an example of how and why the streets and public
places be swept.
This was not the rationalism of Savarkar. Though Savarkar advocated
that meat prohibited for the high caste Hindu, should be eaten by them. No food
was prohibited by Savarkar. Savarkar’s advocacy that Hindus should eat meat was
based upon the belief that meat has strength. But it was a myth, because he
forgot that an elephant, though so huge was strictly vegetarian and if an
occasion was available to it, it could also lift a lion (who was a strict
nonvegetarian) with his trunk and injure or kill it. The lion could attack and
kill an elephant more because of his agility and mobility. But Savarkar was
right in the absurdity of the ban on meat. Meat was a taboo to orthodox Hindus
because it was animal food. No food was prohibited, according to Savarkar. Food
should he chosen on the basis of its nutritional value and not on the basis of
religious edicts. He might even have ridiculed the Muslims and Jews for
prohibiting eating of pork because the people of Kodagu (Coorg in English) eat it
as a regular food item. To Americans, English and even Europeans, no food is
prohibited. Africans also eat almost any food, scarcely barring some. Despite
being born in a Chitpawan Hindu family (a sect of Hindus), Savarkar advocated
or at least did not prohibit eating meat. But should he be regarded as a
rationalist for this? It would be a very narrow conception. Hitler was a
vegetarian. Akbar was a vegetarian.
A group photo of people accused in the Mahatma Gandhi's
murder case.
Sitting: Narayan
Apte, Vinayak D. Savarkar, Nathuram
Godse, Vishnu Karkare
In this connection, it is interesting to note that M.N.
Roy, the great rationalist, persuaded Virendra Chattopadhyaya to eat beef in Germany. Roy told Chattopadhyaya that Hindus forbade eating cow’s
meat (beef), in India, not
in Germany.
So one can safely say that, Savarkar was a rationalist in matters of food.
That is not all. Because Savarkar said although the
Vedas and Upanishadas are Hindu scriptures, no one reads them.
Therefore, it is said that Savarkar was a rationalist. Normally if a person’s
source of knowledge is articles in a book, he is not a rationalist. Similarly, one
who regards a person or a book holy can never be a rationalist.
It is perfectly in order that a rationalist or even a
common man should reject Vedas and Upanishads. Puranas do not
teach any moral lesson. Shambhuk episode, Wali incident, Sita’s totally unjust Agnipariksha
and some other features make Ramayana unacceptable. Mahabharat is still
worse. There are many persons in Mahabharat who were not born legitimately. Of
course, this is imagination but the bulk of Hindu population believes in them,
as they are entertaining. Due to their entertainment value and because of
technical and other reasons they attracted audiences on T.V. on Sunday
mornings. But Bible was a failure in this predominantly Hindu kingdom. One can
speculate how a serialization of Quran would fare. Of course, the rationalists
regard them as myths. The three books mentioned are no doubt figments of
imagination for the rationalists. It is not mentioned that Savarkar condemned
these as wrong on ethical grounds or any of the Puranason any other ground.
Rationalism as an appellation can hardly be applied. Ramayana, Mahabharata are
good entertainment stories, as Arabian Nights but no human being should and can
use them for self edification. There are so many irrational propositions in
them, which no rationalist can accept. Puranas come in the same category. Probably
they were composed in the third or fourth century to arrest Buddhism and
Lokayat. Upanishads are a different story. Though they are attached to Vedas,
they contain theoretical discussion and not one of them has canvassed that God
exists. Even Kathopanishad and Brihadaranyak Upanishads do not advance the
theory of theism. A rationalist cannot believe the Vedas. Rigved and Yajurved
contain at places such unrefined passages which are not brought to the notice
of the believers. Even Atharvaveda and Sam Veda do not contain any educational
material. Rationalists study them but by no stretch of imagination can accept
them. Savarkar in his voluminous writings examines them but does not condemn
them. As such, he might be a normal Hindu but definitely not a rationalist.
The literature to which I have made reference so far does
not contain any law that might have governed the Hindus. Sometimes as Ram Shastri
Prabhune says, they might have been weighed as Hadith; sometimes a story, here
or there, attributable to God or Gods might have given guidance or even wrong
guidance. For example, Shambuka episode earned for Rama the Sobriquet
Purushottam from Agastyamuni, one of the eight Rishis who were the preceptors
of Rama. Unfortunately, some of the Hindu kings thought they were following
Sanatana dharma by behaving according to these irrational, incoherent and even
unjust laws which endorse beheading of Shambuka (a Shudra youth) by Rama. They cannot he
called rationalists.
But the book which acted as a law book for Hindus, like
Savarkar, was a Smriti called Manusmriti. Even till 1956, the Courts, including
Privy Council, accepted the law propounded by Manusmriti as the law of Hindus.
It is the most irrational book which should not have seen the light of day. No
rationalist could accept the legal propositions that the Hindus were expected
to follow. Did Savarkar condemn the book? No, he even praised the book and said
the weakness of the Hindus was cause of not following the book. Remember this
was before 1956. There is no book in the world which treats the so-called
Shudras and women as contemptible and untouchables as inhumanly as Manusmriti.
I venture to think that the Hindus believed in Manusmriti and accepted it is
the reason why India
has not produced a single philosopher after Sankaracharya. There were only
Bhaktas like Tukararam, etc. but not thinkers or philosophers. Many of the Bhaktas,
it seems, were, schizophrenic. All Bhaktas were not of the same hue. But Hindus
accepted all of them with equal reverence.
There is not enough space here to enumerate all the
irrationalities of Manusmriti. But it is sufficient to remember that Manusmriti
tells us that the woman in her childhood depends upon her parents, in her youth
or adulthood on her husband and in her old age on her children. No woman
deserves freedom, women’s sensual pleasures must be kept under control, the man
is the one to whom the woman adheres, a woman should get a loaf of bread, a
seat and ornaments.
There are still more ‘gems’ about woman written in
Manusmriti. Remember, though Manusmriti was a Smriti, it was a law, binding upon
Hindus. In 1940, Savarkar in his presidential address of Hindu Mahasabha showed
his commitment to Manusmriti and said that if the lessons of Manusmriti were
learnt, Hindu society will be stronger. Savarkar was bold enough to say that “our
Hindu nation shall prove again unconquerable and a conquering race as we proved
once (Samagra Savarkar Sangrah, published by Maharashtra Hindu Mahasabha, Pune
p. 426.) I must casually mention that Hindu Mahasabha has done a great service
by publishing all Savarkar works in 1960 for only Rs. 160/-
Manusmriti further said that:
A) Shudras were born from the feet (of Brahma);
B) God has given only one occupation to Shudra viz.
serving the high caste;
C) If a Shudra arrogantly teaches the Brahmin about the
latter’s duty, the King shall cause hot oil to be poured in Shudra’s ears;
D) If a Shudra pretends to be of a higher caste, his lips
should be branded;
E) No collection of wealth should be made by a Shudra;
F) The son of a Brahniin from a Shudra woman inherits no
property.
There are more ‘gems’ like these in Manusmriti which no
rational man can endorse. But Savarkar did. Read this in Savarkar’s Samagra Sahitya
(original in Hindi).
“Manusmriti is that scripture which is most worshipable
after Vedas for our Hindu nation, and which from ancient times has become the basis
of our culture, customs, thought and practice. The book for centuries has codified
the spiritual and divine march of our nation. Even today, the rules which are
followed by crores of Hindus in their lives are based upon Manusmriti. Today
Manusmriti is Hindu Law. That is fundamental.” (Emphasis provided.)
Savarkar was addressing a joint conference of Hindu Mahasabha and RSS.
Savarkar has a reputation of being the leader and mentor
of Hindus. Untouchahility was a part of Hindu Dharma. Ambedkar fought against
it all through his life and ultimately embraced Buddhism. No religion or society
in the world (except Hindus) has sanctified untouchables. Savarkar was not
averse to untouchability, though later he established Patit Pavan Sangh in
Ratnagiri. It has never traversed beyond Ratnagiri and Pune. Untouchability is
regarded as a curse by all (except Hindu Mahasabha and RSS). Even Mahatma Gandhi
condemned it, though he could have been unwilling to exclude them from the
Hindu fold. Untouchables were regarded as ati-Shudras but outside the pale of
caste-system. Gandhi would have probably accepted them in the Shudra caste.
We have already seen how Manusmriti regarded untouchables.
Even the shadow of an untouchable cannot fall upon a Brahmin or in his path.
But he made some cosmetic changes to Hindu society. While permitting caste
Hindus to dine with untouchables, he emphatically said in 1939 that the Hindu
Mahasabha, “will not introduce or support compulsory legislation regarding Temple entry by untouchables,
etc. in old temples beyond the limit the non-Hindus are allowed by Custom as in
force today.”
Thus, he was not in favour of unqualified entry of
Harijans in temples as Ambedkar had launched in Kalaram temple; Kakasaheb Gadgil
participated in Parvati in Pune and Senapati Bapat, in general.
On 20th June, Savarkar again guaranteed that the Hindu
Mahasabha shall not enforce any legislation regarding the entry of untouchables
in the ancient temples or be compelled by law for amending any sacred ancient
and moral usage or custom prevailing in those temples. In general, the
Mahasabha will not support any legislation, which may be thrust upon it.
While considering the reformist views of the Savarkar
brothers, so far as personal law is concerned, let alone a rationalist, was
Savarkar even a reformer?
I have already mentioned above that Savarkar never made
efforts to ameliorate the condition of untouchables. Though he founded the Patit
Pavan Sangh but with Bhagurkars Patit Pavan Sangh untouchables remained untouchables. Hindu Mahasahha as an organisation
did nothing for untouchables. Savarkar opposed, as mentioned, the entry of
untouchables into temples. Gods of caste Hindu temples were surely, the Gods of
untouchables too, but the latter had no access to them. Laxman Shastri clearly
advised Gandhi that untouchabilily had no sanction of Shastras. Savarkar never endorsed
this view. This is the inhumanism of the rationalist Savarkar.
A couple of matters, not pertaining strictly to
rationalism need be mentioned here. He was a Hindu Nationalist believing that Hindustan belonged to Hindus and no one else. Akhand
(undivided) has always been the motto of Hindu Mahasabha of which Savarkar was
the President. In fact, it was founded by him. Yet, on 15th August,
1943 (four years before partition) he said, “I have no quarrel with Mr. Jinnah’s
two nations theory that Hindus and Muslims are two nations. We Hindus are a
nation by ourselves and it is a historical fact that Hindus and Muslims are two
nations.”
In the same place he mentioned that Hindus would he in the
dominant position. Dominant in what, say—more taxes, more posts etc. Savarkar
says nothing about it. Rest of the speech is confusing and incoherent and at
least needs no examination. A nation is always based upon territory. Muslims,
as a nation in Savarkar’s confession, would occupy a territory. Then where is
Akhand Hindustan (undivided India)?
At one time Sindh and Bengal
had Coalition Ministries. Shyam Prakash Mukherjee (son of Ashutosh) was a
minister in the Bengal. Savarkar’s hatred for
Congress was so intense that Dhananjay Keer (almost official Biographer)
mentions that, “Savarkar had advised the Hindu leaders in the Muslim majority
provinces to join Ministries formed by Muslim League (Keer -p.348)
This is the Hinduism or nationalism of Savarkar. That Savarkar
was opposed to Quit India movement need not be held against him. Consistent
with this view he advised Hindus to join armed forces “not to defeat fascism
but to strengthen Hinduism.” In fact, he chided Nehru for opposing fascism for,
according to Savarkar, Hitler and Mussolini knew what was best for their
countries.
When in Ratnagiri Jail (where he had been transferred),
Savarkar wrote his magnum opus Hindutva, wherein he made a distinction between
Hindutva and Hinduism. All those who come under the umbrella of Hinduism were
Hindus, for according to Savarkar, those whose history, gods, pitrubhumi
(father’s home-land) and matrubhumi (mother’s home-land) were within and from
this land were Hindus; so defined, Sikhs. Buddhists and Jains were Hindus but not
Muslims and Christians. Muslims’ attachment was for Kaba and Mecca, their holy places. Christians looked
towards Jerusalem
where Jesus was crucified. Their Pitrubhumi was India
but their Punyabhumi (land of worship) was abroad, not Hindustan.
Therefore, they are not Hindus. Savarkar’s confusion and incoherence are
evident here. He equated religion with nation. But see what he says elsewhere
that “change of religion leads to change of nationality.”
I have given enough material to show that Savarkar was not
a rationalist. He was communal. I do not hold against him that he was acquitted
in Gandhi murder case. The government did not appeal against him. Being a
lawyer I would say, agreeing with the Supreme Court, that he was doubly
innocent.
The UP Assembly elections results (Feb 2012) gave a clear mandate to theSamajvadi Party of Mulayam Singh. Congress was claiming that the results of UPwill be a shocker, meaning a surprisingly better performance of Congress. Asresults came through Congress was nowhere close the claims it made or theresults it expected were nowhere close to the expectation. Prior to theelections the main leaders of UP Congress with Rahul Gandhi in the lead,campaigned vigorously. The carrot of reservations for Muslims was dangled andthe Congress President Sonia Gandhi’s tears on Batla house encounter were ondisplay, but it seems the Muslim voters in particular were notimpressed. So far Congress had a very safe equation with the Muslim voters,also called ‘Muslim vote bank’ by its critics. The understanding was that sinceMuslims know that communal BJP is not the option where will they go exceptvoting for the ‘secular’ Congress.
Where do matters stand? It is true that large section of Muslims realizethe BJP can never be the option for Muslims as BJP is the epitome of Communalpolitics, it is the political child of RSS, which is working for the agenda ofHindu Rashtra through its multiple progeny like VHP, Bajrang Dal, VanvasisKalyan Ashram and myriad other organizations. In communal violence while theCongress has played despicable role in anti Sikh riots of 1984, it has alsobeen the mute witness to the series of anti Muslim riots and pogrom againstMuslims. The justice to the victims of violence has not been activelypursued by the Congress, wherever it has been the ruling formation, Mumbaiviolence of 1992-93 being the worst example of ignoring and marginalizing thevictims of carnage. The Muslims have also suffered at the hands of Congressruled Governments in the aftermath of acts of terror, particularly those ofMecca Masjid, Malegaon, Ajmer and Samjhauta express blasts. In the aftermath ofthe blasts Muslim youth were arrested, tortured, their carriers as young mencrushed and later they released for the lack of any credible evidencewhatsoever.
Still despite all these lapses Muslim community has realized thatCongress is a lesser evil, more particularly after the Gujarat anti Muslimpogrom under the leadership of Narendra Modi, where the transformation of a democraticset up to a semi fascist Hindu rashtra is more than visible. They have alsoseen that the real culprits of bomb blasts mentioned above belonged to the RSSpantheon, for which BJP made all the efforts to shield them.
This distinction between Congress and BJP seems to be more or less clearand when one reflects on the acts of commission and omission of NDA Governmentat the centre between 1998 and 2004.Having kept aside the BJP as an electoraloption what happens to Congress claim to be a secular party or the onecommitted to interests of minorities. There is a mixed bag here. On one sideCongress has instituted Sachar Committee and Rangnath Misra Commission, whichhave given the true picture of the plight of Muslims. At the same time theimplementation of the recommendations of these reports is too slow, if at all.The intimidated Muslim minority is looking for policies which can lift it upfrom the stifling atmosphere of ghettoes in which they have been forced to livedue to the massive communal violence and the preceding and accompanyingdemonization of the community in the social space. A large section of communitywants quotas, but putting it as an electoral promise cannot fool the community,which is seeing the dismal fate of Sachar Committee and Rangnath MisraCommission.
The Batla House encounter, the refusal of the UPA II Government toinstitute a proper inquiry into it and the accompanying demonization of Muslimyouth was a big blow to the community which is struggling against odds to come outof ghettoization and wishes to embrace modern education and take advantage ofopportunities to the best of its capabilities, which at present are notadequate to pull it out of the morass in which it is trapped. This Batla Houseencounter and the negative attitude of the Congress for a proper inquirycommittee showed that Congress does not have courage to take up the issue ofsecurity of Muslims in the right earnest. Mere tears don’t protect you. Theevent in the neighboring Rajasthan, where the police entered the mosque andopened the fire to kill those inside was also something which cannot bepardoned at all.
Congress seems be a mixed platform and a pragmatic party as far as theprinciples of secularism are concerned. It will go this far and refuse to takethe decisive steps for principled democratic-secular values. One knows that thestate apparatus has also been heavily communalized and it takes a strong willpower to take up principled secular stand and to live up to that. In UP itseems the Muslim voters had the choice between Mulayam Singh and Congress.Mulayam had also temporarily allied with Kalyan Singh, who had presided overthe demolition of Babri mosque, but that was a brief alliance. Riots in Mau andother places had erupted during the Mulayam regime. Here surely Mulayam musthave sounded like the lesser evil vis a vis BJP or Congress.
Is this the same Congress, which had the glorious tradition of MahatmaGandhi and Pundit Nehru, who staked their all for preservation of secularvalues? With the present dithering attitude of the Congress leadership suchclaims are nowhere close to acceptable. Many a Congress youth are also muchcommunalized. One does not know whether this grand old party, is making itsworkers know about what secularism is, what is the truth behind the prevalentbiases against minorities; how Gandhi (Mohandas) had ensured the Hindu-Muslimunity by staking his life and how Jawaharlal stood like a rock supporting theedifice of plural values. A party is made by the workers and their mindset.While leadership dithers on such issues the workers, by and large have no clueas to how to take up the issues of Muslim minorities, battered by the onslaughtof communal violence and communal politics. UP Assembly election results apart fromother things are a pointer for the party to take up the legacy of MahatmaGandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, if it wants to make a positive contribution toIndian democracy.
The founder of the Samkhya1
philosophical system and the author of the Samkhya-sutra was, as is generally
believed, Kapila (c. 6th-5th centuries B. C.). The Samkhya-sutra was lost, so
that we have to use later sources - Isvarakrishna Samkhya Karika (3rd-4th
centuries C. E.), Vacaspati Misra's Samkhya Tattva Kaumudi (9th century), and
others.
Kapila's primary principle is
that the world is material. Matter (prakrti)
is the basis of everything that is, it is omnipresent, eternal, and one. The
motion of prakrti is just as eternal
as prakrti itself. Primordially, prakrti has no outside cause, for matter
(prakrti) has neither beginning nor
end. Kapila wrote that the world was not created, and therefore there was no creator;
the world itself was the cause of the world; the world developed gradually.
Kapila recognised the objective
nature of the cause-and-effect links in nature, self-development of nature from
the lower forms to the higher. The first sloka
of the Samkhya-Karika says that there is continuity in the development of the
world from the lower to the higher... Nothing can arise out of something that
does not exist... There is a close tie between cause and effect. If that were
not so, everywhere at any moment anything at all could arise. Each cause
conditions a specific effect, and there can be no cause without an effect. The
effect is always inseparable from the cause. Therefore any existence is
conditioned.
Kapila used the materialist
doctrine of the cause-and-effect links to substantiate his atheism and to
criticise the religion of Brahmanism. He wrote that, if the first cause is God
(Brahma) and the world is the effect, there is a discrepancy between cause and
effect. There can be, however, no discrepancy between cause and effect. The
cause of this world is matter (prakrti).
The universe is the result of modifications of matter.
As we see, Kapila uses the
category of causality from the very start in the exposition of his
philosophical views. That is not accidental. The point is that the positions of
Samkhya on causality were the decisive premise which determined its
philosophical orientation. In criticising Machism, Lenin pointed out: "The
question of causality is particularly important in determining the philosophical
line of any of the recent 'isms' ".2 As we see it, this idea of Lenin's is entirely
valid, methodologically, relative to some of the oldest "isms".
According to the Samkhya
doctrine, everything (any phenomenon) has its material cause. All relations
between cause and effect are conceived in the sense that the latter is always
present in the former.3 The following are the Samkhya arguments in
favour of this.
There are two kinds of causes,
material (in which the effect is latent) and efficient or productive (which
helps the effect to manifest itself). If we accept, however, that the material
cause does not contain the effect, the concept of "productive cause"
loses its meaning, for it has no object of action.
Assuming that an effect arises out
of a cause in which it is not contained is tantamount to asserting that
existence arises out of nonexistence, or something emerges out of nothing.
An effect must be of the same
nature as the cause; they have the same basis. A cloth may only be made out of
yarn (not out of milk); curds may be made out of milk (rather than out of
yarn), etc.
The theory that the effect exists
before it manifests itself is called Satkarya-
vada.4
Thus Samkhya asserts that there
are no effects without causes. Everything in nature has a cause of its own,
including body and soul, sensations and intellect, which are "limited and
dependent objects".
Only "the cause of all
causes and effects", that is, prakrti (matter), has no cause. " ...
The products are caused, while prakrti is
uncaused; the products are dependent, while prakrti
is independent; the products are many in number, limited in space and time,
while prakrti is one, all-pervading
and eternal."5
According to the Samkhya
doctrine, prakrti consists of three
forces or gunas - sativa, rajas, and tamas. Sativa is regarded as something light and illuminating; rajas, motivating and mobile; tamas, heavy and restraining. Analysis
of the Samkhya Karika shows that in effect sativa IS potential consciousness;
rajas, the source of motion, action, and development; tamas is that which restrains action and slows down development.
These three gunas, constituting the
basis of any object or phenomenon, are inseparably connected and mutually
condition one another. They are connected as closely as flame, oil, and lamp
wick.
The gunas are a kind of primary principles - mass (tamas), energy (rajas), and. the conscious principle (sativa).6 Everything in nature is charged, as it were,
with these three principles. The interaction between them consists in that
energy cannot exist without mass, while conscious phenomena do not exist
without energy. How does an object or phenomenon emerge or is shaped, then? The
process begins with individual particles of the three forces, indifferently scattered
through primary matter, being gathered together into who~es under the impact of
natural affinity; this results in non-uniform pressure in various parts of
matter, so that bodies distinct from one another are gradually formed instead
of uniform indifferent matter.
The emergence or formation of
some object or phenomenon does not signify creation of matter, In the same way
as the disappearance of an individual object or phenomenon does not mean
destruction of matter. In the process of evolution, nature does not increase or
diminish quantitatively. Matter cannot be either created or destroyed. The sum
total of all matter - of all its actual or potential states - always remains
constant. The elements of matter are in eternal motion which cannot stop for a
second even; any material process, any growth or withering away is nothing but
redistribution of matter, its transition from the past into the present and
from the present into the future, or from potentiality to actuality. Redistribution
of mass and energy engenders the entire diversity of the material world, the
world of plants and animals.
The idea that matter (mass and
energy) does not grow or diminish quantitatively but is merely redistributed in
the process of emergence and destruction of individual objects and phenomena of
nature, can be regarded as one of the strokes of genius of ancient Indian
thinkers who anticipated later discoveries. In a most general form, this can be
viewed as a distinct expression of the idea of the Law of conservation of the mass of substance as it is known to
modern natural science. It should be stressed at the same time that
anticipation as one of the forms of perception of scientific truth was
characteristic of many outstanding thinkers of antiquity. As Engels put it,
thinkers of the past brilliantly anticipated countless numbers of truths whose
correctness is now proved scientifically.
Matter and the laws of its
evolutionary development are knowable. The ways or channels through which man
receives knowledge of the objects and phenomena surrounding him are the five
sense organs.
The entire infinite variety of
matter is classified into five basic forms or essences: earth, water, fire,
air, and ether. Samkhya regards the process of world manifestation as ordered
development of matter from the finer forms to the most dense ones which are
referred to as "material elements" (mahabhuta). These "essences" are similar to the Greek
"elements", with the exception that what in Graeco-Roman philosophy
is referred to as the "fifth essence" (quintessentia) is called the first essence, or spatiality (akaca) in Samkhya.
We do not set ourselves the task
of considering the interconnections and mutual relations between the gunas and essences, although this
question is of great interest both on the epistemological and ontological
plane. But we should dwell, however briefly, on the relationship between the gunas and prakrti. The point is that Samkhya is the first and probably the
only philosophical school in India
to make a serious attempt to formulate the philosophical concept of matter.
We know that there were
materialists in Europe (such as Ludwig Feuerbach, for instance, who rejected
the abstract speculations of Hegel) who negated the existence of matter as the
being of "the general", calling it "an empty abstraction",
and recognised matter only as the being of individual things. From this
viewpoint, only individual things are genuinely material, like this house,
this tree, these leaves, etc. That which is given in direct sense perception,
that is, the individual sensual objects, is indeed material.7 This
view, however, was deficient in divorcing the singular from the general,
violating as it did their dialectic unity.
Philosophers of the Samkhya
school were also guilty of divorcing the singular from the general, but it is
very important to point out that they recognised the reality of both. In their
view, matter (prakrti) exists in two
independent forms, one general and one singular, and that was where the
metaphysical gap lay.
Matter of the first form
("the general") is substance, the first cause of the world of
objects; in it, the gunas are in a
state of equilibrium, and it is therefore without qualities, which prevents man
from perceiving it through the senses. It is therefore incognisable, but the
incognisability results from its fineness rather than from nonexistence.
Matter of the second form
("the singular") is an infinite number of moving objects, phenomena,
and events developing in space and time. The singular is accessible to the
sense organs, it is knowable.8
The stumbling block for the
Samkhya authors was the question of the origin of consciousness. Ram Mohan Roy
believes that purusa was created by
Kapila as an explanation for the origin of consciousness.
According to Kapila, purusa is the omniscient and extremely
fine element which, as distinct from prakrti,
possesses consciousness. Prakrti is
the object or matter; purusa is the
subject or consciousness. There are grounds to believe that Kapila was fearful
lest this proposition of his should be given an idealistic interpretation. As
distinct from atman, said Kapila, purusa does
not create anything, it is passive; it is merely a passive witness; only prakrti is active, and so on. Prakrti is the subject of action; in the
process of spontaneous development it comes in contact with purusa and ultimately cognises itself; purusa is devoid of the ability for
self-cognition.
The inconsistencies and errors of
the SamkhyaSchool relative to the origin and
essence of consciousness were readily exploited already in antiquity by
representatives of religious orthodoxy.
In the Middle Ages, Gaudapada,
Vacaspati Misra and other commentators (or followers) of Kapila's doctrine made
further concessions to idealism, recognising the existence of souls independent
of matter.
On the whole, an inconsistent
position on this score gave rise to reproaches on the part of idealists for
concessions to materialism as well as on the part of materialistically-minded
Indian philosophers, Thus S. Radhakrishnan criticises Kapila for deviation from
idealism: "If we admit the Samkhya view of prakrti and its complete
independence of purusa, then it will be impossible to account for the evolution
of prakrti. We do not know how latent
potentialities become fruitful without any consciousness to direct them.,,9
Ram Mohan Roy holds an opposite
view of the Samkhya philosophy, indicating that its weakness lies in negating
the historicity of development. Had the Samkhya philosophy asserted that at a
definite stage in the development of the world, consciousness (chaitanya) arises out of things, while
quantitative changes, reaching a certain phase of development, become
qualitative changes producing new qualities, then the whole inconsistency (asangati) would have disappeared.
Correctly criticising the anti-historical (metaphysical) quality of the
Samkhya philosophy, Roy
regrettably commits an error himself, comparing Kapila's materialism to that of
the French philosophers of the 18th century. The point is that the French
materialism of the 18th century was a historical product of a qualitatively
different epoch, and of a different class; it was different in its content.
Such is a brief characteristic of
the materialism pf the SamkhyaSchool.
Notes:
Indologists differ as to the origin of the name of
this philosophical system. The word samkhya
has two principal meanings: (I) count or computation; (2) profound
meditation, reasoning, counting the pros and cons, struggle both in the
intellectual and physical senses. Taking into account the first meaning,
Gough explains the name Samkhya from the fact that in this system the
principles of the U panisads were listed. We believe that the scholars who
reckon with the second meaning (like S. Radhakrishnan,
Ram Mohan Roy, and others), have a better case. The meanings of the word
Samkhya is close to Gr. philosophia,
dialektike.
V. I. Lenin,
"Materialism and Empirio-Criticism", Collected Works, Vol. 14, p. 153.
Let us point out that Buddhists, Nyayiks and
Vaisesikas adhere to another view of this question. They believe that the
effect does not actually exist in the material cause. Their argument is
that if the effect existed in the material cause, there would be no need
for the efficient cause. (If, for instance, the pot actually exists in the
clay, what is the potter for?). The theory (vada) that the effect does not exist in the material cause
before it is produced is sometimes called Arambha-vada, that is, the theory of the origin of the new in
the effect.
Advaita Vedantists also adhere to the Satkarya-vada, with that essential
difference that the transition of the cause into the effect is declared to
be merely an appearance or Illusion (vivarta).
The following explanation is given here: If we saw a rope and took it for
a snake, that does not mean that the rope had turned into a snake.
Similarly, if Brahman created our universe that does not mean that it
actually became the universe that it created. Brahman (in this instance,
cause) remains identical to itself and immutable, while the universe (in
this case, effect) is merely appearance or illusion
S. Radhakrishnan, Indian
Philosophy., Vol. II, p. 260.
S. Dasgupta (see A
History of Indian Philosophy,. Vol. I, Cambridge, 1922, pp. 244-245) interprets
sativa as "intelligence-stuff"; rajas, as "energy-stuff", and tamas, as "mass-stuff".
This view has its sources in the nominalist
tradition. In the Middle Ages nominalism, according to Marx, was the first
expression of materialism which struggled against medieval scholasticism.
The progressive thinkers of the 17th century (in particular Hobbes, Locke,
and Spinoza in his theory of the individual things) also relied on
nominalist principles in their fight against Aristotlean scholasticism.
French materialists also turned to that tradition as an antidote to
objective idealism.
Pradhana -
prakrti in the state of equilibrium of the gunas - is just as unknowable as the Kantian thing-in-itself. Prakrti is knowable only in the
state of non-equilibrium of the gunas,
that is, what is knowable here is the dynamics of the gunas rather than pradhana;
the transition from pure potentiality (avyaktam)
to actuality (vyaktam) is
cognised.
S. Radhakrishnan, Indian
Philosophy, Vol. II, p.326
(Source: Indian Philosophy in Modern Times - Part-1, Chapter 1; page 98-107)
