Julie Andrews turned 69 and to commemorate her 69th birthday on October 1, actress/vocalist Julie Andrews made a special appearance at Manhattan's Radio City Music Hall for the benefit of the AARP. One of the musical numbers she performed was "My Favourite Things" from the legendary movie "The Sound of Music."
Here are the actual lyrics she used:
Maalox and nose drops and needles for knitting,
Walkers and handrails and new dental fittings,
Bundles of magazines tied up in string,
These are a few of my favourite things.
Cadillac's and cataracts, and hearing aids and glasses,
Polident and Fixodent and false teeth in glasses,
Pacemakers, golf carts and porches with swings,
These are a few of my favourite things..
When the pipes leak, When the bones creak,
When the knees go bad,
I simply remember my favourite things,
And then I don't feel so bad.
Hot tea and crumpets and corn pads for bunions,
No spicy hot food or food cooked with onions,
Bathrobes and heating pads and hot meals they bring,
These are a few of my favourite things.
Back pains, confused brains, and no need for sinnin',
Thin bones and fractures and hair that is thinnin',
And we won't mention our short, shrunken frames,
When we remember our favourite things.
When the joints ache, When the hips break,
When the eyes grow dim,
Then I remember the great life I've had,
And then I don't feel so bad.
(Ms. Andrews received a standing ovation from the crowd that lasted over four minutes and repeated encores.
Forwarded by Dr. Amit Sanyal
Friday, October 29, 2010
Friday, October 22, 2010
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
What is Religion? By Swami Vivekananda
Fourteen definitions from his Complete Works.
Religion is the science which learns of the transcendental in nature through the transcendental in man.
Religion is the idea which is raising the brute into man and man to God.
Religion is the manifestation of the Divinity in man.
Religion is a process. It means being true to your own nature.
Religion is the realization of spirit as spirit.
Religion is realization; not talk nor doctrine, nor theories, however beautiful they may be. It is being and becoming, not hearing or acknowledging; it is the whole soul becoming transformed into what it believes.
Religion is the eternal relation between the eternal soul and the eternal God.
I make the distinction between religion and creed. Religion is the acceptance of all existing creeds.
True religion is the awakening of the spirit within us, consequent upon pure and heroic action.
I do not believe in a religion which cannot wipe the widow's tear or bring a piece of bread to the orphan's mouth.
Doing good to others is the one great universal religion.
My mission is to show that religion is everything and in everything... Without Vedanta every religion is superstition; with it, everything becomes religion.
Religion is learning to play consciously.
http://www.vedanta-atlanta.org/articles/vivekananda/religion.html
Religion is the science which learns of the transcendental in nature through the transcendental in man.
Religion is the idea which is raising the brute into man and man to God.
Religion is the manifestation of the Divinity in man.
Religion is a process. It means being true to your own nature.
Religion is the realization of spirit as spirit.
Religion is realization; not talk nor doctrine, nor theories, however beautiful they may be. It is being and becoming, not hearing or acknowledging; it is the whole soul becoming transformed into what it believes.
Religion is the eternal relation between the eternal soul and the eternal God.
I make the distinction between religion and creed. Religion is the acceptance of all existing creeds.
True religion is the awakening of the spirit within us, consequent upon pure and heroic action.
I do not believe in a religion which cannot wipe the widow's tear or bring a piece of bread to the orphan's mouth.
Doing good to others is the one great universal religion.
My mission is to show that religion is everything and in everything... Without Vedanta every religion is superstition; with it, everything becomes religion.
Religion is learning to play consciously.
http://www.vedanta-atlanta.org/articles/vivekananda/religion.html
Indian Anglophony, Diasporan Polycentricism, and Postcolonial Futures
Before I come to my main argument, let me propose a slightly different way of classifying the world of the colonizers and the colonized. Such a re-classification has bearing, I believe, not only on the question of centres and peripheries, but also on diasporic creativity. The colonial encounter was not just a clash of political and economic regimes, of civilizations, of different ways of apprehending the world, of two or more epistemological and representational styles, but also, for the purposes of my project, of monolingualisms and multilingualisms. Not just centres and peripheries, metropoles and colonies, collaborative and resistant colonial cultures were produced by these encounters, but also cultures that can be differentiated as being monologic or dialogic, uniglot or polyglot, unisonic or polyphonic, orthoglossic or heteroglossic. Though the Manichean cultural economy of colonialism and neo-colonialism, in a way, ensures that these encounters continue to be framed in binary or oppositional terms, we, however, know that the situation on the ground is much more complex. For the time being, though, I should like to retain this distinction between monolingual and multilingual cultures because it suggests a crucial area of difference which I find useful.
I would argue that colonialism, modernity, capitalism, indeed the various interlocking systems of power, oppression, and exploitation that were brought to bear upon subject peoples might be construed as a series of mutually reinforcing and supportive monolingualisms. The cultures that received them, in this case the various regions of India, were, in contrast, constituted by interlocking sets of *multilingualisms. When these two structures collided, then, newer kinds of cultural systems were produced. English, for instance, became the dominant cultural mono-system in the colonies, a sort of centre of power, even though it was a different kind of English. An English that eventually, as Raja Rao says, was meant to "convey in a language not one's own the spirit that is one's own" (Kanthapura 5). This English, although already transformed through carrying the burden of native tongues, was nevertheless a cultural system at odds with those of the other native tongues of India, which it peripheralized. Thus, I would like to distinguish not only between various kinds of English, but also between English and non-English signifying systems. I would suggest that in the Indian context, language is a space, a worldview, a 'destiNation'. Of course, by language I mean the whole complex signifying and mediating terrain through which Indian realities are translated and interpreted. Thus, linguistic positions, not just historical or geographical, caste, or gender, locations are important determinants in the problematic of representing India which is at the heart of several postcolonial debates today. What I thus propose to do is to look at the question of centres and peripheries through this notion of language as place.
To illustrate, I shall briefly review a well-known text produced by a diasporic filmmaker: Deepa Mehta's feature film, Fire (1996). Not just the choice of the film but the choice of the episode might be suggestive of my larger method. I choose this film because I think it is as good a representative as any of what may be called, after Sara Suleri, "the rhetoric of English India," or, to use an even better phrase from my friend Rakesh Bhatt's work, India as an "English-sacred" imagined community (76-78). In what follows, I shall endeavour to interrogate the cultural politics of this English-sacred India. The episode that I shall invoke is, as you will see, very 'minor', even insignificant, to the plot and theme of the film, but is crucial to its representational grammar. If read in a certain way, it opens up the whole complex range of concerns that govern both cultural production and reception, especially the manner in which the tensions and contradictions between what might be termed location and locution are played out.
The scene in question is a thirty-second conversation between Mundu, the servant, and an anonymous milkman. The milkman greets Mundu; Mundu asks for two litres of milk (instead of one) because it is the karva chauth festival; the milkman tells Mundu that Mundu looks weak; Mundu retorts by asking him to stop adding water to the milk. The conversation is totally marginal to the central action or theme of the film, but in its very careless, almost absent-minded retention in the film, exposes a major fault line in its mimetic logic. I would like to think of it as the inadvertent slip in which the rhetoric of English India betrays itself. For the extraordinary thing about this conversation is precisely what might have been most natural outside the film, say in the daily interaction between servants and milkmen in Delhi, is rendered odd and sharply foregrounded in the careful viewer's attention. And this special feature has to do with the medium of the exchange, not its content. This is the only bit of dialogue in the otherwise English film that takes place in Hindi. In other words, this is the sole occasion in which any two people speak to each other in an Indian language. Otherwise, everyone in Fire – Radha, Ashok, Sita, Jatin, Ashok's Guru, and even the servant Mundu, speak only in English.
What do those few lines of dialogue in Hindi signify in a film which entirely in English? What questions do they raise about the production and consumption, the source and the target, the content and form, of images of India? The likely answer is that English, the language the characters speak in, is supposed to stand in for Hindi. As members of a middle-class, business family in one of Delhi's modest neighbourhoods, Lajpat Nagar, the characters would normally speak Hindi. However, since the film is in English, it is the language superimposed on the dialogue. In other words, both the actors and the audience are expected to imagine that Hindi is in fact spoken when hearing the characters speak English.
This metonymic substitution is also suggested by several other devices in the film. For instance, the use of different accents, plus other linguistic signals such as translation, code-switching, code-mixing, use of collocations, norm-deviant syntax, diction, and so on, further reinforce the idea that the speakers are not monolingual. So we might say that the film only asks us, as indeed does all art, to suspend our disbelief in its own particular way and thereby to comply with the director's directive to imagine Hindi being spoken when listening to the English dialogue.
But is the problem this simple? What do we make of the dialogue the dialogue between Jatin and his Chinese girlfriend, or between the latter's father and Jatin? It is clear in the film that they speak English. This raises the interesting question: when does English stand for Hindi, and when is it merely itself? The filmmaker, unfortunately, does not help us by clearly signalling when the shifts are supposed to occur, nor does she make any attempt to offer us different varieties of English, apart from the various accents that I have already noted, that may suggest different social or linguistic registers. I would argue that the problem of the cultural and linguistic dissonance that I have identified is compounded by the fact that Radha and Sita, both shown to be suppressed and traditional wives, speak in a more Anglicised accent than Ashok, the husband. In Jatin, the same Anglicised accent serves to emphasize his modern ways as opposed to his brother's, but in Radha's and Sita's cases, the incongruity of oppressed, house and tradition-bound behenjis1 speaking like foreign-returned or convent-educated memsahibs is not lost on an audience that would instantly associate that kind of accent with a class that is exclusive and powerful, not powerless and oppressed – at least in India.
For someone who is otherwise quite self-conscious about her artistic intentions, Mehta is rather nonchalant about her choice of English. In her note on the official DVD "Why Fire is in English" she says,
I am a victim of post-colonized India. The medium of my education was English. In fact, not unlike many children of middle-class parents, English was my first language and Hindi, my second. I wrote the script of Fire in English, a language I am totally at ease with. … I thought about translating Fire into Hindi, but more for the Western audience rather than the Indian one. Western audiences find a 'foreign' film easier to imbibe, easier to accept in its cultural context, if it is in its indigenous language. 'A foreign film can only be a foreign film if it is in a foreign language.' And if it isn't then somehow it is judged (albeit subconsciously), as a Western film disguised as a foreign one…. Well, how to explain to people in the West that most middle-class Indians speak Hinglish?
This is quite an extraordinary statement from the writer-director that helps to squarely place the film – quite contrary to Mehta's professed intentions – as an Indian film to (western) foreigners and as a foreign film to Indians. That Mehta is concerned throughout this statement with how westerners will read her film is all the more evidence for the fact that she never once thought of how Indians would see it. Instead of producing the instant identification that she expected and took so much for granted, the same middle class organized protests against her film. The use of English as the medium for her film, far from being natural or unproblematic as Mehta had assumed, actually estranged her from her material. Had Mehta done the opposite, that is, translated the script into Hindi, I am sure the film would have been different – it would have been foreign to western audiences not only on account of its language, and been received as being Indian by Indians. What Mehta has created is not the western film disguised as a foreign film as she had feared, but a foreign film disguised as an Indian one. Whereas foreign and western for her are contrasting categories, to Indians they are synonymous.
An opposite example of what I have just described can be found in the films of Dev Benegal, another very talented young Indian English film maker. In English August, for example, adapted from the novel by Upamanyu Chatterjee, Benegal, who co-wrote the script with Chatterjee, ensured that several languages were spoken and heard in the film. The novel itself exploits a mixed Hindi-English idiom of sorts, but apart from such hybridity, which is by now rather commonplace in Indian English texts, English August is a book written entirely in English. In it, Hindi and Bangla are languages referred to, but never heard in the book, except through their distant echoes in English. The novel is set mostly in Madna, a fictional territory supposedly somewhere in Central India, and the language spoken there is supposedly Hindi. In the film, Madna is in Andhra Pradesh, and when Agastya, the protagonist, moves there, we begin to hear Telugu spoken pretty regularly, and there are, of course, English subtitles to help out non-native speakers. In addition, one of the characters, Sathe, occasionally breaks into Marathi. The Collector, Mr. Srivastava, is shown to be a Hindi speaker; among the government officers, then, not just English, but Hindi is spoken routinely, too. The film thus possesses a linguistic texture that is even more complex than the book, which had in the first place presented a diaglossic, polyglot English. Unlike Fire, which flattens the linguistic complexity of India, the film English August actually augments it by vernacularizing the original Indian English text.
The way the two films Fire and English, August, use language is, of course, symbolic of their larger representational politics. What can offer more of a contrast to anglophone diasporic 'elite' cinema than a production from Bollywood? I would like to cite a film with a strikingly similar motif: Raj Kumar Santoshi's Lajja. Although structured as a typical blockbuster, the film manages to make some fairly bold statements on behalf of women. The film vernacularizes English which, along with computers and modern education, is seen as the carrier of modern values. Beginning and ending in New York, it suggests both continuities and discontinuities between the diaspora and the homeland in a manner which is at once critical and sophisticated, while retaining elements of the conventional and stereotypical. There are four 'Sitas' in the film, each with her own struggle against patriarchal norms. The women are neither defeminized nor turned into avenging angels, nor forced to turn lesbian as in Fire, but each is shown to resist a major aspect of oppressive tradition. The film is not only a powerful satire on the double standards and economic cruelties of arranged marriages, but it also questions several patriarchal assumption about a woman's place in a male-dominated society. Some examples include the idea that women must be faithful, but men can play around; or that a woman, whose betrothed leaves her just before they are take their vows, stands disgraced; or that it is the groom's right to receive dowry; or that women who are educated will not find good husbands; and so on. Throughout the film, the agency and the worth of women are emphasized, sometimes in predictable and at other times in unusual ways. Control over one's own biology, sexual and reproductive freedom, female desire rather than male control, and liberation from caste oppression are all portrayed in the film. In one of its most effective scenes, the main character, Janaki, rewrites the famous agnipariksha scene of the Ramayan. Santoshi's Janaki boldly departs from the traditional script reserved for Sita, not only by blaming Lakshmana for disfiguring Shurpanakha and thus inviting the enmity of Ravana, but also by asking Ram to join her in the agnipariksha. Since he has been separated from her during her period of abduction, it stands to reason that he, too, should be asked to prove his chastity. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time that such a question has been asked in any re-enactment of the many of versions of the Ramayana, not only on celluloid, but in any other medium. In the film, the irate audience sets fire to the theatre. Janaki thus endures her own agnipariksha as the actress who had dared to rewrite the script of the Ramayana.
I mention this because Fire, indeed the title of the film itself, makes much of this episode and its symbolic significance. What is more interesting to me, however, is that the reaction anticipated by Santoshi in the film was not replicated by Indian audiences. The same audiences that reacted so violently to Mehta's film accepted the rescripting of tradition that Santoshi offered. One explanation could be that Santoshi's film was not, after all, really radical. Like all Bollywood masala films, it both violated and reaffirmed social norms. How could a film designed to titillate, to offer an escape from reality through the feminist political fantasy of women's emancipation, be revolutionary? In contrast, it may be argued that Mehta's film had the ability really to shock and shake the bastions of Indian patriarchy and get the fundamentalists out on the street baying for her blood. But one might argue, on the contrary, that it is Mehta's film which is sensational, insulting, and deliberately injurious. That Mehta should have used all the controversy Fire generated to sell the film should not be surprising, even though in "Why Fire is in English" Mehta is quick to point out her dismay at the reaction to her film. Every DVD of the film makes a virtue of this controversy: there is a whole section highlighting the outrage that the film generated as part of the Director's Notes; in addition, there are interviews with the stars of the film and a full feature on how Indian women are oppressed by tradition. This propaganda, of course, also fits into the neat anti-Hindutva political agenda to which the film offers itself for easy assimilation, thereby ensuring its continued currency among the ever-widening circles of the politically correct postcolonials the world over.
Mehta frames her problematic in classical modernist/feminist terms as "the extremely dramatic battle that is waged daily between the forces of tradition and the desire for an independent, individual voice" (Mehta, "Director's Notes"). She also contrasts her own supposedly serious and interventionist cinema with the entertainment factory that is Bollywood, which turns women into vacuous objects of fantasy and desire. There is a kind of supercilious claim to superior cognition made here in implying that Bollywood blockbusters serve up a variety of visual popcorn while it is to Mehta and her kind that we must turn if we wish to have a better insight into Indian 'reality'. Ironically, Bollywood is used as a trope throughout the film, not only to show its pervasive influence on the life of the characters, but as a romantic counterpoint to the drudgery of their daily lives. Jatin not only runs a video parlour, but his Chinese girl-friend wants to be a film star in Hong Kong; Sita dances to Hindi film music, and acts out her fantasies, in full costume, to the accompaniment of an old Hemant Kumar-Lata Mangeshkar duet with Radha. Analogously, A. R. Rahman's score uses his own hit songs as background music to the film: Mehta's attitude is thus characterized by the peculiar paradox of a parasitic appropriation of Bollywood combined with an utter contempt for its ethos. Though I would not venture to valorise Bombay cinema ideologically or politically, Mehta's deliberately reductive accusation against it does it an injustice. Mehta simply disregards the complexity of popular cinema in India, which must, at one and the same time, respond to multiple and contradictory ideological, aesthetic, thematic, and commercial, compulsions. Contrary to Mehta's assertions, these compulsions and complexities actually make the Bombay films not just highly intelligent and sophisticated, but also multilingual, multidimensional, multilayered, and multistoried, in ways that Mehta does not even consider. In fact, one might even argue that Bollywood cinema has always had a progressive dimension to it, whether it is on questions of Hindu-Muslim relations or the status of the lower castes and women. This evolutionary and reformist dimension of popular cinema cannot be rejected in the name of a 'purer', more radical or politically engaged, rhetoric of art cinema.
Eleanor Hall, the narrator of the propaganda clip that accompanies the feature film on the Fire DVD, reinforces the dismissiveness Mehta displays towards the popular taste of Indians who watch Bombay films. She takes us to the set of one such film during the shooting of a song and dance sequence, and then quite contemptuously describes Bollywood as not only "India's entertainment factory" but as "the keeper of Hindu culture as well." Precisely. Mainstream Hindu culture, if we are to go by films like Lajja, knows how to revise its own texts in ways which are different from those sanctioned by monolingual modernity. But to dismiss these internal corrections and revisions, and to brand the whole community as somehow delinquent and "fundamentalist" shows another sort of intolerance, an intolerance which has also contributed to the polarization of discursive space. In other words, secular modernity, not just Hindu fanaticism, contributes to violence and intolerance. In their own peculiar ways, both are monocultures which block heteroglossia and pluralism.
I have been suggesting that Lajja may be construed as presenting a special kind of critique not just of tradition, but of diasporic Anglophony. Its polycentric and polyphonic multilingualized Hindustani contrasts with the stilted Anglophile monolingualism of Fire. That is why even its critique of Hinduism, though radical and far-reaching, is nonetheless not hostile to certain non-negotiable elements of the very tradition that it seeks to reform. To that extent, it is an attempt at re-engineering Indian society from within. The plurality of its mimetic styles, its internal contradictions and ideological confusions notwithstanding, Lajja manages to delineate the complexity and multiversity of Indian society in transition. Fire, on the other hand, is a monolingual discursive infliction that can be seen as foreign and interfering. Consequently, its cultural politics is divisive and, ultimately, counter-productive. In demonizing tradition, it desecrates and insults what it wishes to change. That is why I cannot endorse Mehta's "mimetic logic" in this film, even if some parts of it move me deeply. Mehta, I must acknowledge, has moved on. Her next film, Earth, mixes Indian languages much more adventurously and effectively. Traditions are both sacred and profane; they are subject to change, but I would resist any attempt to dismiss them by distorting them. I shall therefore be so bold as to say that that is the reason why such 'hard' versions of secularism and modernity have failed in India.
What I have been trying to propose is that the centre/periphery dichotomy is not just territorial, economic, or cultural, but also linguistic. Furthermore, that linguistic centres and peripheries operate both within and across geographical and national boundaries, thereby complicating the representational terrain in ways which conventional Anglocentric criticism fails to recognize. I suggest that by foregrounding the conflict between Anglo-centric monoculturalism, which peripheralizes all other linguistic spaces and locations, and alternative ways of representing postcolonial realities, we might open up radical spaces for criticism and social change that have the potential not just of redefining curricula, but of redrawing academic maps. What is more, neither monolingualism nor multilingualism need to be interpreted in solely literal terms; they may be seen to stand for two different cultural and representational systems. That these are overlapping and (op)positional rather than rigid, mutually exclusive binaries goes without saying.
It should be obvious at this point of my argument that the centre-periphery model, even when it is reversed, is ultimately inadequate to understanding the nature of cultural flows and interactions in the contemporary world. At the very least we need to theorize multiple centres and multiple peripheries in order to account for the nature of cultural exchanges today. If this is granted, it follows that diasporan imaginaries are constructed in terms of multiple and shifting notions of 'homeland' and 'domicile', which are realized through overlapping and contradictory narratives of longing/belonging. While this can be obvious, the question to be asked is whether some heuristic benefit might be derived from a binary between 'centres' and 'peripheries', especially when they are reversed.rvc I have just proposed that using languages as locations is one way of re-framing the centre-periphery dialectic so as to give it a new salience. I shall now suggest that the way out of what would otherwise be a perpetually reinforced binary of domination-subordination is to use translation and multilingualism as strategies for promoting cultural difference and countering cross-cultural inequalities. Postcolonial futures need to resist both domination and subordination, by marking out areas of hope and cooperation and constructing alternatives. To that extent the centre-periphery model may remain useful in that it underscores relations of inequality between agents scattered all over the world, but integrated into a global system of exchange and domination.
In approaching my conclusion, I would like to spell out my central thesis once again. I have tried to juxtapose Indian English, that is, not just the language, but its entire range of literary and cultural production, with its con-texts: I use this word in the sense in which my friend John Thieme has in his recent book, Postcolonial Contexts. By con-texts, let me hasten to clarify, are meant not just the social, economic, and cultural backgrounds and grounds of production, which is the normal meaning of the word. By contexts are meant a whole range and group of texts that serve as contrary points of reference. These texts, then, are the contrary or opposing texts, in conjunction with which this body of cinema and writing needs to be read and understood. What I have been suggesting is that Indian English texts can best be read in conjunction with these con-texts written in the vernacular languages of India, and containing the contrary portrayals of India in juxtaposition to which Indian English literature is best understood. In other words, my argument posits that the literatures of India are complex not only because they are multilingual and multicultural, but in forming a cultural system, they cannot be contained in a single language. In other words, India, Indianess, and Indian literature are not arithmetical and cumulative – the sum total of the creative output in various languages, but something slightly different altogether: the total in this case, is more than a sum of the parts. In a peculiar sense, it is also less than a sum of the parts because every once in a while we may encounter a text which aims at expressing nothing short of the totality of India, even if it is in only one of its multitudinous languages. So, Indian creativity, and by extension, India and 'Indianness', belong to a different dimension than the mere accumulation of texts and tongues. It is somewhat akin to how a translated text is neither the original nor an entirely new text, but a different kind of text, a trans-text, if you will.
Translation is, of course, central to my argument. Analogically, let me suggest here that Indian literature is thus not just a literature but a trans-literature and that Indian culture is not just a culture, but a trans-culture. That is why it is all the more pernicious for Indian English literature to usurp the entire or the overwhelmingly significant part of space given to India, as is increasingly the case. Not only is Indian English literature not the entirety of Indian literature, but any special claims that it might make either in terms of quality or quantity must be rigorously questioned. This is not to question either the validity or the raison d'être of Indian English literature, but to seek to reposition it in the continuum of Indian literatures.
In other words, I am making a case against any claims to autonomy and self-sufficiency that Indian English literature or its advocates might advance. To speak of a tradition of Indian English literature, then, is at best fraught with major problems. To teach this literature in and of itself, as is done in universities all over India, and the world, is even less sustainable. Being a hybrid literature, Indian English literature demands a dual set of parameters, both national and international. There is, on the one hand, an international tradition of writing in English, called by any name, of which Indian English literature partakes, but it is also a part of the trans-tradition called Indian literature. To extend the argument to texts of the diaspora, I would simply say that these must be read in conjunction with and juxtaposition to Indian English texts, just as the latter need to be studied along with our so-called vernacular texts.
If I were to put my argument in a nutshell, I would say that it pleads for a process of continuous vernacularization – a vernacularization not only of English, but of the whole project of modernity and nationalism. We will recall that M.N. Srinivas made both Sanskritization and Westernization very famous as key concepts in Indian sociology.2 What we need, to complete the trinity, is this idea of vernacularization. If I had more time at my disposal, I would have argued that one of the reasons for the importance of diasporas is their vernacularization of the nation.
In this final section of my essay, I wish briefly to turn my attention to the question of postcolonial futures. This phrase alludes not only to the title of Bill Ashcroft's book published in 2002, but also to the last section of the newly-written sixth chapter of the just released new edition of The Empire Writes Back (2002). In the latter, the authors not only touch on the question of globalization (216-217) and diaspora (217-219), but seem to suggest that postcolonial studies can be not merely analytical, but engaged, and even constitutive of new futures. I am in sympathy with this drift. As Ashcroft says, in his Introduction to On Postcolonial Futures, postcolonial productions are not merely reactive, locked in a "prison of protest", but can also be proactive; this is because postcolonial discourses are primarily those of transformation (1). But Ashcroft is wrong in assuming that all postcolonials can do is to be able to take over "dominant discourses" and to transform them "in the service of their own self-empowerment" (1). Obviously, he is still in 'The Empire Writes Back' mode. There are discourses which neither write back to the imperium, nor do they react to it – after all, writing back is also a way of reifying the centre. Discourses which are at least partly independent of metropolitan centres are, instead, part of the internal expressions of a culture or civilization. These are societies that, so to speak, simply "do their own thing," although, in the process they may be implicated in a larger world.
That is why English is so important to Ashcroft, but not to us in India. In Australia, presumably, they have nothing else to write in. They have no alternative but to write back; so all that they can do is to seize the power of self-representation rather than allow others to represent them: "The central strategy in transformations of colonial culture is the seizing of self-representation" rvc(2). In India, however, many other languages persist. For Ashcroft, the key to decolonization is the seizing of English for the colonized subject's own use, thereby fracturing the power of the colonizer's medium and its civilizing function. But for us in India, the counter-strategy is not only to use English against its grain, but also to use translations, vernacular writing, and other means of self-representation, to resist and combat neo-colonial cultural domination. Ashcroft says the "strategies by which colonized societies have appropriated dominant technologies and discourses and used them in projects of self-representation" is "a model for the ways in which local communities everywhere engage global culture itself" (2). Once again, we are confronted with a dualistic model which presupposes that there is some kind of global culture somewhere out there distinct from pre-existing local cultures. Actually, we might argue that what is termed 'global culture' is merely an abstraction, while the only realities on the ground are its multiple local mediations.
In "The Future of English" (7-21), Ashcroft says that English has been dismantled and replaced by "a network of local post-colonial practices" (18). This "network of post-colonial practices" is precisely what I call the vernacularization of English. Like Ashcroft, I am concerned not just about postcolonial futures, but about the role that English can play in shaping them. Like Ashcroft, I, too, believe that transformation rather than reaction or sheer opposition is the key to a more enabling and equitable prospect for us, the once or twice or multiply-colonized peoples of the world. Nevertheless, I have argued that the one special type of postcolonial transformation that happens through "vernacularization" is much more than simply using the colonizer's language or technologies of representation, though it does involve both these strategies. "Vernacularization" is not just writing back to the centre, but finding an alternative space and mode of self-representation. It is therefore a way of being and communicating which cannot be simply appropriated or assimilated by the master-narratives of colonialism or even postcolonial high theory.
The real challenge for postcolonial futures is not so much to abolish centres so that only a plethora of peripheries exist, nor to abolish a centre with a capital "C" so that only multiple centres remain scattered all over. In the first instance there will be only peripheries, and no centres; in the second, only centres, and no peripheries. Such exercises, however persuasive theoretically, do not transform or overrule the material realities of a complex and highly unequal world order. The real challenge is to try to resist a certain kind of power through the amplification of another kind of power. Such a manoeuvre is exempt from both the naïve self-deceptions of utopians and the brutally cynical exercise of power of those whose business it is to dominate. Postcolonial transformation requires a critical redeployment of power rather than an escape from, or the denial of, the reality of power. In the more specific context of my paper, this is effected by invoking the multilingualism and polyphony of India against the monolingualism and univalence of both colonial and neo-colonial power. And a key device in such a strategic intervention is translation.
Works Cited
Ashcroft, Bill. The Empire Writes Back. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2002.
Ashcroft, Bill. On Postcolonial Futures. London: Continuum, 2001.
Benegal, Dev, Co-writer and Director. English August: An Indian Story. Feature Film. Bombay: Tripicfilm, 1994.
Bhatt, Rakesh. "Experts, Dialect, and Discourse." International Journal of Applied Linguistics. 12.1 (2002): 74-109.
Chatterjee, Upamanyu. English, August. London: Faber, 1988.
Mehta, Deepa. "Why Fire Is in English." Official DVD of Fire.
Mehta, Deepa. "Director's Notes." Official DVD of Fire.
Mehta, Deepa, Dir. Earth. Feature Film. India, 1999.
---, Dir. Fire. Feature Film. Canada/India, 1996.
Rao, Raja. Kanthapura. 1938. New Delhi: Orient Paperbacks, 1970
Santoshi, Raj Kumar, Dir. Lajja. Feature Film. Bombay, 2001.
Srinivas, M.N. Caste in Modern India and Other Essays. Bombay: Asia Publishing House, 1953.
Thieme, John. Postcolonial Contexts: Writing Back to the Canon. London: Continuum, 2001.
Makarand Paranjape, October 20, 2010 (Wednesday)
http://www.makarand.com/acad/IndianAnglophonyDiasporanPolycentricismandPostcolonialFutures.htm
I would argue that colonialism, modernity, capitalism, indeed the various interlocking systems of power, oppression, and exploitation that were brought to bear upon subject peoples might be construed as a series of mutually reinforcing and supportive monolingualisms. The cultures that received them, in this case the various regions of India, were, in contrast, constituted by interlocking sets of *multilingualisms. When these two structures collided, then, newer kinds of cultural systems were produced. English, for instance, became the dominant cultural mono-system in the colonies, a sort of centre of power, even though it was a different kind of English. An English that eventually, as Raja Rao says, was meant to "convey in a language not one's own the spirit that is one's own" (Kanthapura 5). This English, although already transformed through carrying the burden of native tongues, was nevertheless a cultural system at odds with those of the other native tongues of India, which it peripheralized. Thus, I would like to distinguish not only between various kinds of English, but also between English and non-English signifying systems. I would suggest that in the Indian context, language is a space, a worldview, a 'destiNation'. Of course, by language I mean the whole complex signifying and mediating terrain through which Indian realities are translated and interpreted. Thus, linguistic positions, not just historical or geographical, caste, or gender, locations are important determinants in the problematic of representing India which is at the heart of several postcolonial debates today. What I thus propose to do is to look at the question of centres and peripheries through this notion of language as place.
To illustrate, I shall briefly review a well-known text produced by a diasporic filmmaker: Deepa Mehta's feature film, Fire (1996). Not just the choice of the film but the choice of the episode might be suggestive of my larger method. I choose this film because I think it is as good a representative as any of what may be called, after Sara Suleri, "the rhetoric of English India," or, to use an even better phrase from my friend Rakesh Bhatt's work, India as an "English-sacred" imagined community (76-78). In what follows, I shall endeavour to interrogate the cultural politics of this English-sacred India. The episode that I shall invoke is, as you will see, very 'minor', even insignificant, to the plot and theme of the film, but is crucial to its representational grammar. If read in a certain way, it opens up the whole complex range of concerns that govern both cultural production and reception, especially the manner in which the tensions and contradictions between what might be termed location and locution are played out.
The scene in question is a thirty-second conversation between Mundu, the servant, and an anonymous milkman. The milkman greets Mundu; Mundu asks for two litres of milk (instead of one) because it is the karva chauth festival; the milkman tells Mundu that Mundu looks weak; Mundu retorts by asking him to stop adding water to the milk. The conversation is totally marginal to the central action or theme of the film, but in its very careless, almost absent-minded retention in the film, exposes a major fault line in its mimetic logic. I would like to think of it as the inadvertent slip in which the rhetoric of English India betrays itself. For the extraordinary thing about this conversation is precisely what might have been most natural outside the film, say in the daily interaction between servants and milkmen in Delhi, is rendered odd and sharply foregrounded in the careful viewer's attention. And this special feature has to do with the medium of the exchange, not its content. This is the only bit of dialogue in the otherwise English film that takes place in Hindi. In other words, this is the sole occasion in which any two people speak to each other in an Indian language. Otherwise, everyone in Fire – Radha, Ashok, Sita, Jatin, Ashok's Guru, and even the servant Mundu, speak only in English.
What do those few lines of dialogue in Hindi signify in a film which entirely in English? What questions do they raise about the production and consumption, the source and the target, the content and form, of images of India? The likely answer is that English, the language the characters speak in, is supposed to stand in for Hindi. As members of a middle-class, business family in one of Delhi's modest neighbourhoods, Lajpat Nagar, the characters would normally speak Hindi. However, since the film is in English, it is the language superimposed on the dialogue. In other words, both the actors and the audience are expected to imagine that Hindi is in fact spoken when hearing the characters speak English.
This metonymic substitution is also suggested by several other devices in the film. For instance, the use of different accents, plus other linguistic signals such as translation, code-switching, code-mixing, use of collocations, norm-deviant syntax, diction, and so on, further reinforce the idea that the speakers are not monolingual. So we might say that the film only asks us, as indeed does all art, to suspend our disbelief in its own particular way and thereby to comply with the director's directive to imagine Hindi being spoken when listening to the English dialogue.
But is the problem this simple? What do we make of the dialogue the dialogue between Jatin and his Chinese girlfriend, or between the latter's father and Jatin? It is clear in the film that they speak English. This raises the interesting question: when does English stand for Hindi, and when is it merely itself? The filmmaker, unfortunately, does not help us by clearly signalling when the shifts are supposed to occur, nor does she make any attempt to offer us different varieties of English, apart from the various accents that I have already noted, that may suggest different social or linguistic registers. I would argue that the problem of the cultural and linguistic dissonance that I have identified is compounded by the fact that Radha and Sita, both shown to be suppressed and traditional wives, speak in a more Anglicised accent than Ashok, the husband. In Jatin, the same Anglicised accent serves to emphasize his modern ways as opposed to his brother's, but in Radha's and Sita's cases, the incongruity of oppressed, house and tradition-bound behenjis1 speaking like foreign-returned or convent-educated memsahibs is not lost on an audience that would instantly associate that kind of accent with a class that is exclusive and powerful, not powerless and oppressed – at least in India.
For someone who is otherwise quite self-conscious about her artistic intentions, Mehta is rather nonchalant about her choice of English. In her note on the official DVD "Why Fire is in English" she says,
I am a victim of post-colonized India. The medium of my education was English. In fact, not unlike many children of middle-class parents, English was my first language and Hindi, my second. I wrote the script of Fire in English, a language I am totally at ease with. … I thought about translating Fire into Hindi, but more for the Western audience rather than the Indian one. Western audiences find a 'foreign' film easier to imbibe, easier to accept in its cultural context, if it is in its indigenous language. 'A foreign film can only be a foreign film if it is in a foreign language.' And if it isn't then somehow it is judged (albeit subconsciously), as a Western film disguised as a foreign one…. Well, how to explain to people in the West that most middle-class Indians speak Hinglish?
This is quite an extraordinary statement from the writer-director that helps to squarely place the film – quite contrary to Mehta's professed intentions – as an Indian film to (western) foreigners and as a foreign film to Indians. That Mehta is concerned throughout this statement with how westerners will read her film is all the more evidence for the fact that she never once thought of how Indians would see it. Instead of producing the instant identification that she expected and took so much for granted, the same middle class organized protests against her film. The use of English as the medium for her film, far from being natural or unproblematic as Mehta had assumed, actually estranged her from her material. Had Mehta done the opposite, that is, translated the script into Hindi, I am sure the film would have been different – it would have been foreign to western audiences not only on account of its language, and been received as being Indian by Indians. What Mehta has created is not the western film disguised as a foreign film as she had feared, but a foreign film disguised as an Indian one. Whereas foreign and western for her are contrasting categories, to Indians they are synonymous.
An opposite example of what I have just described can be found in the films of Dev Benegal, another very talented young Indian English film maker. In English August, for example, adapted from the novel by Upamanyu Chatterjee, Benegal, who co-wrote the script with Chatterjee, ensured that several languages were spoken and heard in the film. The novel itself exploits a mixed Hindi-English idiom of sorts, but apart from such hybridity, which is by now rather commonplace in Indian English texts, English August is a book written entirely in English. In it, Hindi and Bangla are languages referred to, but never heard in the book, except through their distant echoes in English. The novel is set mostly in Madna, a fictional territory supposedly somewhere in Central India, and the language spoken there is supposedly Hindi. In the film, Madna is in Andhra Pradesh, and when Agastya, the protagonist, moves there, we begin to hear Telugu spoken pretty regularly, and there are, of course, English subtitles to help out non-native speakers. In addition, one of the characters, Sathe, occasionally breaks into Marathi. The Collector, Mr. Srivastava, is shown to be a Hindi speaker; among the government officers, then, not just English, but Hindi is spoken routinely, too. The film thus possesses a linguistic texture that is even more complex than the book, which had in the first place presented a diaglossic, polyglot English. Unlike Fire, which flattens the linguistic complexity of India, the film English August actually augments it by vernacularizing the original Indian English text.
The way the two films Fire and English, August, use language is, of course, symbolic of their larger representational politics. What can offer more of a contrast to anglophone diasporic 'elite' cinema than a production from Bollywood? I would like to cite a film with a strikingly similar motif: Raj Kumar Santoshi's Lajja. Although structured as a typical blockbuster, the film manages to make some fairly bold statements on behalf of women. The film vernacularizes English which, along with computers and modern education, is seen as the carrier of modern values. Beginning and ending in New York, it suggests both continuities and discontinuities between the diaspora and the homeland in a manner which is at once critical and sophisticated, while retaining elements of the conventional and stereotypical. There are four 'Sitas' in the film, each with her own struggle against patriarchal norms. The women are neither defeminized nor turned into avenging angels, nor forced to turn lesbian as in Fire, but each is shown to resist a major aspect of oppressive tradition. The film is not only a powerful satire on the double standards and economic cruelties of arranged marriages, but it also questions several patriarchal assumption about a woman's place in a male-dominated society. Some examples include the idea that women must be faithful, but men can play around; or that a woman, whose betrothed leaves her just before they are take their vows, stands disgraced; or that it is the groom's right to receive dowry; or that women who are educated will not find good husbands; and so on. Throughout the film, the agency and the worth of women are emphasized, sometimes in predictable and at other times in unusual ways. Control over one's own biology, sexual and reproductive freedom, female desire rather than male control, and liberation from caste oppression are all portrayed in the film. In one of its most effective scenes, the main character, Janaki, rewrites the famous agnipariksha scene of the Ramayan. Santoshi's Janaki boldly departs from the traditional script reserved for Sita, not only by blaming Lakshmana for disfiguring Shurpanakha and thus inviting the enmity of Ravana, but also by asking Ram to join her in the agnipariksha. Since he has been separated from her during her period of abduction, it stands to reason that he, too, should be asked to prove his chastity. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time that such a question has been asked in any re-enactment of the many of versions of the Ramayana, not only on celluloid, but in any other medium. In the film, the irate audience sets fire to the theatre. Janaki thus endures her own agnipariksha as the actress who had dared to rewrite the script of the Ramayana.
I mention this because Fire, indeed the title of the film itself, makes much of this episode and its symbolic significance. What is more interesting to me, however, is that the reaction anticipated by Santoshi in the film was not replicated by Indian audiences. The same audiences that reacted so violently to Mehta's film accepted the rescripting of tradition that Santoshi offered. One explanation could be that Santoshi's film was not, after all, really radical. Like all Bollywood masala films, it both violated and reaffirmed social norms. How could a film designed to titillate, to offer an escape from reality through the feminist political fantasy of women's emancipation, be revolutionary? In contrast, it may be argued that Mehta's film had the ability really to shock and shake the bastions of Indian patriarchy and get the fundamentalists out on the street baying for her blood. But one might argue, on the contrary, that it is Mehta's film which is sensational, insulting, and deliberately injurious. That Mehta should have used all the controversy Fire generated to sell the film should not be surprising, even though in "Why Fire is in English" Mehta is quick to point out her dismay at the reaction to her film. Every DVD of the film makes a virtue of this controversy: there is a whole section highlighting the outrage that the film generated as part of the Director's Notes; in addition, there are interviews with the stars of the film and a full feature on how Indian women are oppressed by tradition. This propaganda, of course, also fits into the neat anti-Hindutva political agenda to which the film offers itself for easy assimilation, thereby ensuring its continued currency among the ever-widening circles of the politically correct postcolonials the world over.
Mehta frames her problematic in classical modernist/feminist terms as "the extremely dramatic battle that is waged daily between the forces of tradition and the desire for an independent, individual voice" (Mehta, "Director's Notes"). She also contrasts her own supposedly serious and interventionist cinema with the entertainment factory that is Bollywood, which turns women into vacuous objects of fantasy and desire. There is a kind of supercilious claim to superior cognition made here in implying that Bollywood blockbusters serve up a variety of visual popcorn while it is to Mehta and her kind that we must turn if we wish to have a better insight into Indian 'reality'. Ironically, Bollywood is used as a trope throughout the film, not only to show its pervasive influence on the life of the characters, but as a romantic counterpoint to the drudgery of their daily lives. Jatin not only runs a video parlour, but his Chinese girl-friend wants to be a film star in Hong Kong; Sita dances to Hindi film music, and acts out her fantasies, in full costume, to the accompaniment of an old Hemant Kumar-Lata Mangeshkar duet with Radha. Analogously, A. R. Rahman's score uses his own hit songs as background music to the film: Mehta's attitude is thus characterized by the peculiar paradox of a parasitic appropriation of Bollywood combined with an utter contempt for its ethos. Though I would not venture to valorise Bombay cinema ideologically or politically, Mehta's deliberately reductive accusation against it does it an injustice. Mehta simply disregards the complexity of popular cinema in India, which must, at one and the same time, respond to multiple and contradictory ideological, aesthetic, thematic, and commercial, compulsions. Contrary to Mehta's assertions, these compulsions and complexities actually make the Bombay films not just highly intelligent and sophisticated, but also multilingual, multidimensional, multilayered, and multistoried, in ways that Mehta does not even consider. In fact, one might even argue that Bollywood cinema has always had a progressive dimension to it, whether it is on questions of Hindu-Muslim relations or the status of the lower castes and women. This evolutionary and reformist dimension of popular cinema cannot be rejected in the name of a 'purer', more radical or politically engaged, rhetoric of art cinema.
Eleanor Hall, the narrator of the propaganda clip that accompanies the feature film on the Fire DVD, reinforces the dismissiveness Mehta displays towards the popular taste of Indians who watch Bombay films. She takes us to the set of one such film during the shooting of a song and dance sequence, and then quite contemptuously describes Bollywood as not only "India's entertainment factory" but as "the keeper of Hindu culture as well." Precisely. Mainstream Hindu culture, if we are to go by films like Lajja, knows how to revise its own texts in ways which are different from those sanctioned by monolingual modernity. But to dismiss these internal corrections and revisions, and to brand the whole community as somehow delinquent and "fundamentalist" shows another sort of intolerance, an intolerance which has also contributed to the polarization of discursive space. In other words, secular modernity, not just Hindu fanaticism, contributes to violence and intolerance. In their own peculiar ways, both are monocultures which block heteroglossia and pluralism.
I have been suggesting that Lajja may be construed as presenting a special kind of critique not just of tradition, but of diasporic Anglophony. Its polycentric and polyphonic multilingualized Hindustani contrasts with the stilted Anglophile monolingualism of Fire. That is why even its critique of Hinduism, though radical and far-reaching, is nonetheless not hostile to certain non-negotiable elements of the very tradition that it seeks to reform. To that extent, it is an attempt at re-engineering Indian society from within. The plurality of its mimetic styles, its internal contradictions and ideological confusions notwithstanding, Lajja manages to delineate the complexity and multiversity of Indian society in transition. Fire, on the other hand, is a monolingual discursive infliction that can be seen as foreign and interfering. Consequently, its cultural politics is divisive and, ultimately, counter-productive. In demonizing tradition, it desecrates and insults what it wishes to change. That is why I cannot endorse Mehta's "mimetic logic" in this film, even if some parts of it move me deeply. Mehta, I must acknowledge, has moved on. Her next film, Earth, mixes Indian languages much more adventurously and effectively. Traditions are both sacred and profane; they are subject to change, but I would resist any attempt to dismiss them by distorting them. I shall therefore be so bold as to say that that is the reason why such 'hard' versions of secularism and modernity have failed in India.
What I have been trying to propose is that the centre/periphery dichotomy is not just territorial, economic, or cultural, but also linguistic. Furthermore, that linguistic centres and peripheries operate both within and across geographical and national boundaries, thereby complicating the representational terrain in ways which conventional Anglocentric criticism fails to recognize. I suggest that by foregrounding the conflict between Anglo-centric monoculturalism, which peripheralizes all other linguistic spaces and locations, and alternative ways of representing postcolonial realities, we might open up radical spaces for criticism and social change that have the potential not just of redefining curricula, but of redrawing academic maps. What is more, neither monolingualism nor multilingualism need to be interpreted in solely literal terms; they may be seen to stand for two different cultural and representational systems. That these are overlapping and (op)positional rather than rigid, mutually exclusive binaries goes without saying.
It should be obvious at this point of my argument that the centre-periphery model, even when it is reversed, is ultimately inadequate to understanding the nature of cultural flows and interactions in the contemporary world. At the very least we need to theorize multiple centres and multiple peripheries in order to account for the nature of cultural exchanges today. If this is granted, it follows that diasporan imaginaries are constructed in terms of multiple and shifting notions of 'homeland' and 'domicile', which are realized through overlapping and contradictory narratives of longing/belonging. While this can be obvious, the question to be asked is whether some heuristic benefit might be derived from a binary between 'centres' and 'peripheries', especially when they are reversed.rvc I have just proposed that using languages as locations is one way of re-framing the centre-periphery dialectic so as to give it a new salience. I shall now suggest that the way out of what would otherwise be a perpetually reinforced binary of domination-subordination is to use translation and multilingualism as strategies for promoting cultural difference and countering cross-cultural inequalities. Postcolonial futures need to resist both domination and subordination, by marking out areas of hope and cooperation and constructing alternatives. To that extent the centre-periphery model may remain useful in that it underscores relations of inequality between agents scattered all over the world, but integrated into a global system of exchange and domination.
In approaching my conclusion, I would like to spell out my central thesis once again. I have tried to juxtapose Indian English, that is, not just the language, but its entire range of literary and cultural production, with its con-texts: I use this word in the sense in which my friend John Thieme has in his recent book, Postcolonial Contexts. By con-texts, let me hasten to clarify, are meant not just the social, economic, and cultural backgrounds and grounds of production, which is the normal meaning of the word. By contexts are meant a whole range and group of texts that serve as contrary points of reference. These texts, then, are the contrary or opposing texts, in conjunction with which this body of cinema and writing needs to be read and understood. What I have been suggesting is that Indian English texts can best be read in conjunction with these con-texts written in the vernacular languages of India, and containing the contrary portrayals of India in juxtaposition to which Indian English literature is best understood. In other words, my argument posits that the literatures of India are complex not only because they are multilingual and multicultural, but in forming a cultural system, they cannot be contained in a single language. In other words, India, Indianess, and Indian literature are not arithmetical and cumulative – the sum total of the creative output in various languages, but something slightly different altogether: the total in this case, is more than a sum of the parts. In a peculiar sense, it is also less than a sum of the parts because every once in a while we may encounter a text which aims at expressing nothing short of the totality of India, even if it is in only one of its multitudinous languages. So, Indian creativity, and by extension, India and 'Indianness', belong to a different dimension than the mere accumulation of texts and tongues. It is somewhat akin to how a translated text is neither the original nor an entirely new text, but a different kind of text, a trans-text, if you will.
Translation is, of course, central to my argument. Analogically, let me suggest here that Indian literature is thus not just a literature but a trans-literature and that Indian culture is not just a culture, but a trans-culture. That is why it is all the more pernicious for Indian English literature to usurp the entire or the overwhelmingly significant part of space given to India, as is increasingly the case. Not only is Indian English literature not the entirety of Indian literature, but any special claims that it might make either in terms of quality or quantity must be rigorously questioned. This is not to question either the validity or the raison d'être of Indian English literature, but to seek to reposition it in the continuum of Indian literatures.
In other words, I am making a case against any claims to autonomy and self-sufficiency that Indian English literature or its advocates might advance. To speak of a tradition of Indian English literature, then, is at best fraught with major problems. To teach this literature in and of itself, as is done in universities all over India, and the world, is even less sustainable. Being a hybrid literature, Indian English literature demands a dual set of parameters, both national and international. There is, on the one hand, an international tradition of writing in English, called by any name, of which Indian English literature partakes, but it is also a part of the trans-tradition called Indian literature. To extend the argument to texts of the diaspora, I would simply say that these must be read in conjunction with and juxtaposition to Indian English texts, just as the latter need to be studied along with our so-called vernacular texts.
If I were to put my argument in a nutshell, I would say that it pleads for a process of continuous vernacularization – a vernacularization not only of English, but of the whole project of modernity and nationalism. We will recall that M.N. Srinivas made both Sanskritization and Westernization very famous as key concepts in Indian sociology.2 What we need, to complete the trinity, is this idea of vernacularization. If I had more time at my disposal, I would have argued that one of the reasons for the importance of diasporas is their vernacularization of the nation.
In this final section of my essay, I wish briefly to turn my attention to the question of postcolonial futures. This phrase alludes not only to the title of Bill Ashcroft's book published in 2002, but also to the last section of the newly-written sixth chapter of the just released new edition of The Empire Writes Back (2002). In the latter, the authors not only touch on the question of globalization (216-217) and diaspora (217-219), but seem to suggest that postcolonial studies can be not merely analytical, but engaged, and even constitutive of new futures. I am in sympathy with this drift. As Ashcroft says, in his Introduction to On Postcolonial Futures, postcolonial productions are not merely reactive, locked in a "prison of protest", but can also be proactive; this is because postcolonial discourses are primarily those of transformation (1). But Ashcroft is wrong in assuming that all postcolonials can do is to be able to take over "dominant discourses" and to transform them "in the service of their own self-empowerment" (1). Obviously, he is still in 'The Empire Writes Back' mode. There are discourses which neither write back to the imperium, nor do they react to it – after all, writing back is also a way of reifying the centre. Discourses which are at least partly independent of metropolitan centres are, instead, part of the internal expressions of a culture or civilization. These are societies that, so to speak, simply "do their own thing," although, in the process they may be implicated in a larger world.
That is why English is so important to Ashcroft, but not to us in India. In Australia, presumably, they have nothing else to write in. They have no alternative but to write back; so all that they can do is to seize the power of self-representation rather than allow others to represent them: "The central strategy in transformations of colonial culture is the seizing of self-representation" rvc(2). In India, however, many other languages persist. For Ashcroft, the key to decolonization is the seizing of English for the colonized subject's own use, thereby fracturing the power of the colonizer's medium and its civilizing function. But for us in India, the counter-strategy is not only to use English against its grain, but also to use translations, vernacular writing, and other means of self-representation, to resist and combat neo-colonial cultural domination. Ashcroft says the "strategies by which colonized societies have appropriated dominant technologies and discourses and used them in projects of self-representation" is "a model for the ways in which local communities everywhere engage global culture itself" (2). Once again, we are confronted with a dualistic model which presupposes that there is some kind of global culture somewhere out there distinct from pre-existing local cultures. Actually, we might argue that what is termed 'global culture' is merely an abstraction, while the only realities on the ground are its multiple local mediations.
In "The Future of English" (7-21), Ashcroft says that English has been dismantled and replaced by "a network of local post-colonial practices" (18). This "network of post-colonial practices" is precisely what I call the vernacularization of English. Like Ashcroft, I am concerned not just about postcolonial futures, but about the role that English can play in shaping them. Like Ashcroft, I, too, believe that transformation rather than reaction or sheer opposition is the key to a more enabling and equitable prospect for us, the once or twice or multiply-colonized peoples of the world. Nevertheless, I have argued that the one special type of postcolonial transformation that happens through "vernacularization" is much more than simply using the colonizer's language or technologies of representation, though it does involve both these strategies. "Vernacularization" is not just writing back to the centre, but finding an alternative space and mode of self-representation. It is therefore a way of being and communicating which cannot be simply appropriated or assimilated by the master-narratives of colonialism or even postcolonial high theory.
The real challenge for postcolonial futures is not so much to abolish centres so that only a plethora of peripheries exist, nor to abolish a centre with a capital "C" so that only multiple centres remain scattered all over. In the first instance there will be only peripheries, and no centres; in the second, only centres, and no peripheries. Such exercises, however persuasive theoretically, do not transform or overrule the material realities of a complex and highly unequal world order. The real challenge is to try to resist a certain kind of power through the amplification of another kind of power. Such a manoeuvre is exempt from both the naïve self-deceptions of utopians and the brutally cynical exercise of power of those whose business it is to dominate. Postcolonial transformation requires a critical redeployment of power rather than an escape from, or the denial of, the reality of power. In the more specific context of my paper, this is effected by invoking the multilingualism and polyphony of India against the monolingualism and univalence of both colonial and neo-colonial power. And a key device in such a strategic intervention is translation.
Works Cited
Ashcroft, Bill. The Empire Writes Back. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2002.
Ashcroft, Bill. On Postcolonial Futures. London: Continuum, 2001.
Benegal, Dev, Co-writer and Director. English August: An Indian Story. Feature Film. Bombay: Tripicfilm, 1994.
Bhatt, Rakesh. "Experts, Dialect, and Discourse." International Journal of Applied Linguistics. 12.1 (2002): 74-109.
Chatterjee, Upamanyu. English, August. London: Faber, 1988.
Mehta, Deepa. "Why Fire Is in English." Official DVD of Fire.
Mehta, Deepa. "Director's Notes." Official DVD of Fire.
Mehta, Deepa, Dir. Earth. Feature Film. India, 1999.
---, Dir. Fire. Feature Film. Canada/India, 1996.
Rao, Raja. Kanthapura. 1938. New Delhi: Orient Paperbacks, 1970
Santoshi, Raj Kumar, Dir. Lajja. Feature Film. Bombay, 2001.
Srinivas, M.N. Caste in Modern India and Other Essays. Bombay: Asia Publishing House, 1953.
Thieme, John. Postcolonial Contexts: Writing Back to the Canon. London: Continuum, 2001.
Makarand Paranjape, October 20, 2010 (Wednesday)
http://www.makarand.com/acad/IndianAnglophonyDiasporanPolycentricismandPostcolonialFutures.htm
POLITICS OF DALITISM: creating Dalits among Dalits
The attempt of some of activists of Dalit movement in India to internationalise the issue in World Conference Against Racism (WCAR) concluded in the first week of September and follow up actions have created an impression that there is something basically wrong in the ideological orientation of the movement. The word Dalit was coined in post-colonial India by the disciples of Ambedkar. They did not accept the word Harijan (Men of God) used by Gandhi for the untouchables in Hindu social order because of their aversion against him. The word Dalit therefore, became the vernacular terminology for the oppressed classes, with a wider connotation for electoral sociology in the democratic polity of the country.
Mahatma Gandhi & Dr. Ambedkar: If we look to the history of Dalit movement, it is as old as the birth of the concept of untouchability, which was the darkest spot in Hindu social structure. Though, Hindu reformists tried their best to fight against this social evil right from the days untouchability was born, the real concern over it came to surface during the freedom struggle, when Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. B.R.Ambedkar fought against it in their own way. While Gandhi wanted complete eradication of untouchability for emotional integration of Hindu society, Ambedkar was for abolition of Varnashram structure of the Hindu social order.
The conceptual difference between the two messiahs of untouchables continues to affect the Dalit movement even after their death. While the disciples rejected Mahatma Gandhi for the sake of power and fulfillment of their personal ambitions, Ambedkar became a symbol of Dalit movement. A clue to understanding Ambedkar lies in his hatred of Gandhi. The activists of Dalit movement adopted the same philosophy against the upper castes and are still found boiling in the anger generated by their messiah Ambedkar. Taking advantage of the violent landscape, which started emerging since the closing decades of twentieth century, the followers of Ambedkar adopted the sole agenda to create social disorder and capture power. In both the situations, the process of social transformation in Hindu society, which took off in positive direction just after independence got disturbed.
To understand the multi dimensional direction of the Dalit movement, we may briefly look into the difference between Gandhi and Ambedkar on this issue. During the first Round Table Conference, when Ambedkar favoured the move of the British Government to provide separate electorate for the oppressed classes, Gandhi strongly opposed it on the plea that the move would disintegrate the Hindu society. He went for an indefinite hunger strike from September 20, 1932 against the decision of the then British Prime Minister J.Ramsay MacDonald granting communal award to the depressed classes in the constitution for governance of British India.
In view of the mass upsurge generated in the country to save the life of Gandhi, Ambedkar was compelled to soften his stand. A compromise between the leaders of caste Hindu and the depressed classes was reached on September 24,1932, popularly known as Poona Pact. The resolution announced in a public meeting on September 25 in Bombay confirmed -" henceforth, amongst Hindus no one shall be regarded as an untouchable by reason of his birth and they will have the same rights in all the social institutions as the other Hindus have". This landmark resolution in the history of the Dalit movement in India subsequently formed the basis for giving due share to Dalits in the political empowerment of Indian people in a democratic Indian polity.
Even though Ambedkar was a party to Poona Pact, he was never reconciled to it. His contempt against Gandhi, which continued even after his assassination on January 30,1948. On the death of Gandhi he expressed, "My real enemy has gone, thank goodness the eclipse is over". He equated the assassination of Gandhi with that of Caesar and the remark of Cicero to the messenger - "Tell the Romans, your hour of liberty has come". He further remarked, "While one regrets the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, one cannot help finding in his heart the echo of the sentiments expressed by Cicero on the assassination of Caesar". Considering Gandhi as a "positive danger to this country", he quoted from Bible that "sometime good cometh out of evil, so also I think good will come out of the death of Mr. Gandhi" ( Gandhi and Ambedkar - Saviours of Untouchables by Sheshrao Chavan. Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan publication 2001, page 263-64).
The reaction of Ambedkar over the death of Gandhi may be viewed as a politics of negation for vengeance against the caste Hindus and also for political power for Dalits. He felt, "the problem of depressed classes will never be solved unless they get political power in their own hand" (Thus spoke Ambedkar by Bhagwan Das). He however, did not clarify as to how in a democratic polity of pluralistic society, Dalits would be the sole custodians of power.
Post Ambedkar Dalit Movement: The post-Gandhian and post-Ambedkar Dalit activists re-invented the direction of their movement, which was by and large focussed towards developing the negative ideas in a dark room. They are yet to take the next step to focus their negatives in light for positive prints. In the absence of a scientific endeavour their movement lags in its march towards social reform, as it has more or less become a platform for the political empowerment of some individuals for their personal ambitions and vested interests. This is not only against the concept of equalitarian Hindu sociology of Vedic India but also against the concept of democracy.
The present clash for Dalit leadership has confirmed the theory of C.Rajagopalachari that many Dalit leaders are interested for continuance of the undesirable status of Dalits for the fulfillment of their personal ambitions. Disagreeing with Ambedkar on Dalits issue he said, "…This is material explanation for the violent dislike of Gandhiji exhibited by Dr. Ambedkar, who looks upon this great and inspired reformer as the enemy of the untouchables, meaning thereby of the educated and ambitious among them who find that the depressed status furnishes short cut to position".( "Ambedkar Refuted"page 33, Hind Kitab Publishers: Bombay 1946)
It may be partially true that political empowerment is key to social and economic empowerment as suggested by Ambedkar but this cannot be the sole criteria for the social equality of Dalits. The representatives (122 -76 SC and 46 ST in parliament against its strength of 543 and 1085 -556 SC and 529 ST in state assemblies against their strength of 4370) of Dalits in parliament and state assemblies in sizeable strength have been sharing political power for last fifty years. But if they have failed to bring a desired social change and economic upliftment of Dalits, there is something wrong in the movement, which is yet to be identified. The students of the constituting history have therefore, a right to know from Dalit activists the reason behind the failure of their representatives sharing political power.
One may be amused to understand that how only160 Dalit delegates under the umbrella of National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights in WCAR would have fought for the cause of Dalits in India if the representatives of Dalits sharing political power could not assert and agitate for the cause of their community? An objective analysis of the prevailing social condition and sentiments in India may corroborate the theory of C.Rajagopalachari that Dalit movement has become a vehicle to promote the personal interest of some individuals or groups.
The Dalits despite empowerment are not a political force – why?: In the absence of an All India mind with a cohesive and unified perspective, Dalit movement has also failed to emerge as a strong political force. Dalits are divided into hundreds of castes and sub-castes. About 56 percent of Dalit population belong to about 20 dominant castes among them. These dominant castes are presently grabbing all the privileges provided to the Dalits constitutionally. Even Dr.Ambedkar failed to give an intellectual explanation to unify them together, as a result, his political influence during his life time also remained confined to only Mahar caste of his community in the Maharashtra region.
Dalit activists, due to lack of actual ideological direction are not clear whether they are interested to ensure the material prosperity of Dalits or equal status in Hindu social order. Untouchability has almost disappeared, as touch of Dalit is no more considered to have any polluting affect on caste Hindus. However, so long the Dalits enjoy the benefits of reservation in Government jobs and admission in academic institutions, they may have to bear the stigma of being considered unequal in merit to the caste Hindus. The objective of Dalit movements should be therefore, to erase such stigma, which is possible only if Dalits get a chance for their proper education befitting to the standard required for competitions.
Vested interests in Command: Contrary to the objective of the movement discussed above, the managers of Dalit movement due to their vested interest do not want their people to be cleansed from the stigma of reservation and the agony of their past humiliation of being treated as untouchables. In stead of fighting for transformation of the Hindu social order, they are found more interested to promote themselves as Esperanto of United Nations politics. With weapon of hate, they are neither able to fight against the social inequality and injustice effectively nor in a position to contribute any significant social change.
In stead of looking on the growing consciousness among the educated caste Hindus against the social evil of caste discrimination against Dalits and appreciating this positive change, the Dalit activists ignore and understate the development. Their sole aim is now pointed towards personal ambitions at the cost of their community. This has created a new class of Brahmins among the Dalits, who are now exploiting the actual Dalits by grabbing the benefits meant for the latter. This may look like a paradox, but it is the hard reality.
The on going Dalit movement is gradually losing its track. Its multi-dimensional character based on the philosophy of love and hate is unfortunately turned into political theocracy, which is contrary to the basic concept of the total transformation of Hindu social order. Inciting the Dalits against the caste Hindus for historical agony without any honest effort for their emotional integration with rest of the Hindu social order is neither in the interest of this disadvantaged section of population nor in the interest of the nation.
The shrinking influence of the so called Brahminsm in electoral politics, social transformation, spiritual movement, or even other public affairs are enough indications of gradual changes in Hindu sociology. Dalit movements with a view to create social disorder by promoting caste hatred against the upper castes of ancient Varnashram system will simply halt the process of the on going social transformation. With their political empowerment by occupying the post of President, Union Cabinet ministers, Chief ministers, and bureaucrats, Dalits are gradually getting more opportunities for achieving social empowerment under democratic process. By gaining more confidence, Dalits are now found to be quite assertive of their rights. This however, does not mean that they have been acceptable in community dining or inter-caste marriage, which is not even prevalent within the various Dalit castes.
The objective of any social reform movement is to ensure a peaceful, decent and dignified life for every body without any social confrontation. But, unfortunately the Dalit activists are so obsessed and possessive in their approach towards the historical agony of their community that they have made the latter as prisoners of Dalitism, which hardly has any constructive plan for creation of a just social order. Their slogan for abolition of Varnashram (professional units) system and total abolition of caste is an utopian concept, which will never take root in the diverse and pluralistic Indian society.
Casteism is the bane of Indian society but the Indian people accept caste as a hard reality. Even the Christians and Muslims boast themselves of their upper caste heritage. In South India even Christians are maintaining visible distance from the Dalit Chritians as the latter continue to have separate church, separate burial ground and even separate places for social interactions. Similarly, even Muslims in India and Pakistan there is no inter- caste marriage among the Sheiks, Syed, Paithan and others because of their upper caste heritage before conversion.
The three Dalits groups and their separate agenda: As far as the present Dalit movement is concerned, it is in the hands of three vested interest groups of Dalit politicians, Dalt writers and Chrisian missionaries. Dalit political leaders like Kansi Ram and Ms Mayawati of Bahujan Samaj Party and Ram Vilas Paswan of Lok Jana Shakti are having their influence exclusively among the members of their own community. They can never come to power on their own due to their limited influence among the voters. For coming to power they are compelled to join some other parties dominated by caste Hindus. They are therefore, hardly in a position to bring any social change.
The second group, which claims to be the champion for the cause of Dalits is of Dalit writers. Their personal ambition and ego have kept them away from the common Dalits, who are illiterate and poor. They are more interested in their self-promotion than serving the cause of their community. Their possessiveness is often mistaken as love for Dalits. Since they do not get enough space in media to spit venom against the caste Hindus and are hardly in a position to play an effective role in electoral politics, they are always in search of the forces through which they could get national and international recognition. They have therefore, joined hand with forces (third group) determined to disintegrate the Hindu society.
The interest of the third group in Dalit movement is to de-Hinduise the Dalits and promote their proselytisational endeavour. The argument of this group that Christian society does not have any caste discrimination is not based on ground reality. The Dalit Christians are facing the problem of caste discrimination even in Christian society. Such discrimination is prevalent in Kerala even after the death of Dalit Christians, whose corpses do not find any place in the cemetery meant for upper caste convert Christians. T.V.Rajshekhar, a Dalit writer, while speaking in a seminar (Church and Dalit) organised by Christian leaders in Madras on June 14, 1986 said that Dalit Christians form about 80 percent Christian population in India but contrary to what Jesus Christ preached, the Dalit Christians are also the victim of caste discrimination as they have separate burial ground, separate churches and separate dwelling places.
Ever since the promulgation of presidential order No 19 of 1950 debarring the Dalits of non-Hindu and non-Sikh community to be included in the list of Scheduled castes, the Christian missionaries have been facing difficulty in alluring the Hindu Dalits for their conversion. For this they have already launched a movement for constitutional privileges for Dalit Christians. If they succeed in alienating the Dalits from Hindu social order, the entire Dalit community will get the benefit of constitutional provisions and it will help them in their mission for proselytisation.
Indian Social Institute(ISI), a Roman Catholic Mission outfit organised a meeting on "Durban and Dalit Discourse: Post Durban Scenario" on September 20. The meeting was organised with a view to forming a "broad alliance of disadvantaged section of society to battle the status quo that would prefer to keep them on the periphery of the country's social structure" (Hindu dated September 24). The move of the institute is to internationalise the issue. Had it not been so, it should first cleanse the Christian society in Kerala. In fact the Christian missionaries are also facing a dilemma of the isolation of Dalits from the affluent sections of the community. Dr. Prakash Luis, Executive Director of ISI said, "There is a sense of vertical divide within the community between the socially mobile 'Brahmanical Dalits' and the real Dalits among Dalits".
Conclusion: In the backdrop of the dialectics of Dalit movements, it appears that the Dalits have now become the victims of the politics of Dalitism being played by various groups. Instead of fighting the evils of caste discrimination in Hindu society, the Dalit movement has given birth to neo Dalitism, which hardly has any difference with the polluted Brahmanism.
The movement, which does not have the ingredients to bring about reconciliation among conflicting social groups and fails to accelerate the process of social harmony and human dignity, is bound to lose real direction. Dalits should therefore be very careful about the politics of Dalitism being played by vested interests not only at the cost of the disadvantaged community but also at the cost of social harmony, which is more dangerous for the nation.
By R.Upadhyay, 03. 10. 2001, South Asia Analysis Group, (The analysis in the paper is based on the personal perception of the writer)http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers4%5Cpaper331.html
Mahatma Gandhi & Dr. Ambedkar: If we look to the history of Dalit movement, it is as old as the birth of the concept of untouchability, which was the darkest spot in Hindu social structure. Though, Hindu reformists tried their best to fight against this social evil right from the days untouchability was born, the real concern over it came to surface during the freedom struggle, when Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. B.R.Ambedkar fought against it in their own way. While Gandhi wanted complete eradication of untouchability for emotional integration of Hindu society, Ambedkar was for abolition of Varnashram structure of the Hindu social order.
The conceptual difference between the two messiahs of untouchables continues to affect the Dalit movement even after their death. While the disciples rejected Mahatma Gandhi for the sake of power and fulfillment of their personal ambitions, Ambedkar became a symbol of Dalit movement. A clue to understanding Ambedkar lies in his hatred of Gandhi. The activists of Dalit movement adopted the same philosophy against the upper castes and are still found boiling in the anger generated by their messiah Ambedkar. Taking advantage of the violent landscape, which started emerging since the closing decades of twentieth century, the followers of Ambedkar adopted the sole agenda to create social disorder and capture power. In both the situations, the process of social transformation in Hindu society, which took off in positive direction just after independence got disturbed.
To understand the multi dimensional direction of the Dalit movement, we may briefly look into the difference between Gandhi and Ambedkar on this issue. During the first Round Table Conference, when Ambedkar favoured the move of the British Government to provide separate electorate for the oppressed classes, Gandhi strongly opposed it on the plea that the move would disintegrate the Hindu society. He went for an indefinite hunger strike from September 20, 1932 against the decision of the then British Prime Minister J.Ramsay MacDonald granting communal award to the depressed classes in the constitution for governance of British India.
In view of the mass upsurge generated in the country to save the life of Gandhi, Ambedkar was compelled to soften his stand. A compromise between the leaders of caste Hindu and the depressed classes was reached on September 24,1932, popularly known as Poona Pact. The resolution announced in a public meeting on September 25 in Bombay confirmed -" henceforth, amongst Hindus no one shall be regarded as an untouchable by reason of his birth and they will have the same rights in all the social institutions as the other Hindus have". This landmark resolution in the history of the Dalit movement in India subsequently formed the basis for giving due share to Dalits in the political empowerment of Indian people in a democratic Indian polity.
Even though Ambedkar was a party to Poona Pact, he was never reconciled to it. His contempt against Gandhi, which continued even after his assassination on January 30,1948. On the death of Gandhi he expressed, "My real enemy has gone, thank goodness the eclipse is over". He equated the assassination of Gandhi with that of Caesar and the remark of Cicero to the messenger - "Tell the Romans, your hour of liberty has come". He further remarked, "While one regrets the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, one cannot help finding in his heart the echo of the sentiments expressed by Cicero on the assassination of Caesar". Considering Gandhi as a "positive danger to this country", he quoted from Bible that "sometime good cometh out of evil, so also I think good will come out of the death of Mr. Gandhi" ( Gandhi and Ambedkar - Saviours of Untouchables by Sheshrao Chavan. Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan publication 2001, page 263-64).
The reaction of Ambedkar over the death of Gandhi may be viewed as a politics of negation for vengeance against the caste Hindus and also for political power for Dalits. He felt, "the problem of depressed classes will never be solved unless they get political power in their own hand" (Thus spoke Ambedkar by Bhagwan Das). He however, did not clarify as to how in a democratic polity of pluralistic society, Dalits would be the sole custodians of power.
Post Ambedkar Dalit Movement: The post-Gandhian and post-Ambedkar Dalit activists re-invented the direction of their movement, which was by and large focussed towards developing the negative ideas in a dark room. They are yet to take the next step to focus their negatives in light for positive prints. In the absence of a scientific endeavour their movement lags in its march towards social reform, as it has more or less become a platform for the political empowerment of some individuals for their personal ambitions and vested interests. This is not only against the concept of equalitarian Hindu sociology of Vedic India but also against the concept of democracy.
The present clash for Dalit leadership has confirmed the theory of C.Rajagopalachari that many Dalit leaders are interested for continuance of the undesirable status of Dalits for the fulfillment of their personal ambitions. Disagreeing with Ambedkar on Dalits issue he said, "…This is material explanation for the violent dislike of Gandhiji exhibited by Dr. Ambedkar, who looks upon this great and inspired reformer as the enemy of the untouchables, meaning thereby of the educated and ambitious among them who find that the depressed status furnishes short cut to position".( "Ambedkar Refuted"page 33, Hind Kitab Publishers: Bombay 1946)
It may be partially true that political empowerment is key to social and economic empowerment as suggested by Ambedkar but this cannot be the sole criteria for the social equality of Dalits. The representatives (122 -76 SC and 46 ST in parliament against its strength of 543 and 1085 -556 SC and 529 ST in state assemblies against their strength of 4370) of Dalits in parliament and state assemblies in sizeable strength have been sharing political power for last fifty years. But if they have failed to bring a desired social change and economic upliftment of Dalits, there is something wrong in the movement, which is yet to be identified. The students of the constituting history have therefore, a right to know from Dalit activists the reason behind the failure of their representatives sharing political power.
One may be amused to understand that how only160 Dalit delegates under the umbrella of National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights in WCAR would have fought for the cause of Dalits in India if the representatives of Dalits sharing political power could not assert and agitate for the cause of their community? An objective analysis of the prevailing social condition and sentiments in India may corroborate the theory of C.Rajagopalachari that Dalit movement has become a vehicle to promote the personal interest of some individuals or groups.
The Dalits despite empowerment are not a political force – why?: In the absence of an All India mind with a cohesive and unified perspective, Dalit movement has also failed to emerge as a strong political force. Dalits are divided into hundreds of castes and sub-castes. About 56 percent of Dalit population belong to about 20 dominant castes among them. These dominant castes are presently grabbing all the privileges provided to the Dalits constitutionally. Even Dr.Ambedkar failed to give an intellectual explanation to unify them together, as a result, his political influence during his life time also remained confined to only Mahar caste of his community in the Maharashtra region.
Dalit activists, due to lack of actual ideological direction are not clear whether they are interested to ensure the material prosperity of Dalits or equal status in Hindu social order. Untouchability has almost disappeared, as touch of Dalit is no more considered to have any polluting affect on caste Hindus. However, so long the Dalits enjoy the benefits of reservation in Government jobs and admission in academic institutions, they may have to bear the stigma of being considered unequal in merit to the caste Hindus. The objective of Dalit movements should be therefore, to erase such stigma, which is possible only if Dalits get a chance for their proper education befitting to the standard required for competitions.
Vested interests in Command: Contrary to the objective of the movement discussed above, the managers of Dalit movement due to their vested interest do not want their people to be cleansed from the stigma of reservation and the agony of their past humiliation of being treated as untouchables. In stead of fighting for transformation of the Hindu social order, they are found more interested to promote themselves as Esperanto of United Nations politics. With weapon of hate, they are neither able to fight against the social inequality and injustice effectively nor in a position to contribute any significant social change.
In stead of looking on the growing consciousness among the educated caste Hindus against the social evil of caste discrimination against Dalits and appreciating this positive change, the Dalit activists ignore and understate the development. Their sole aim is now pointed towards personal ambitions at the cost of their community. This has created a new class of Brahmins among the Dalits, who are now exploiting the actual Dalits by grabbing the benefits meant for the latter. This may look like a paradox, but it is the hard reality.
The on going Dalit movement is gradually losing its track. Its multi-dimensional character based on the philosophy of love and hate is unfortunately turned into political theocracy, which is contrary to the basic concept of the total transformation of Hindu social order. Inciting the Dalits against the caste Hindus for historical agony without any honest effort for their emotional integration with rest of the Hindu social order is neither in the interest of this disadvantaged section of population nor in the interest of the nation.
The shrinking influence of the so called Brahminsm in electoral politics, social transformation, spiritual movement, or even other public affairs are enough indications of gradual changes in Hindu sociology. Dalit movements with a view to create social disorder by promoting caste hatred against the upper castes of ancient Varnashram system will simply halt the process of the on going social transformation. With their political empowerment by occupying the post of President, Union Cabinet ministers, Chief ministers, and bureaucrats, Dalits are gradually getting more opportunities for achieving social empowerment under democratic process. By gaining more confidence, Dalits are now found to be quite assertive of their rights. This however, does not mean that they have been acceptable in community dining or inter-caste marriage, which is not even prevalent within the various Dalit castes.
The objective of any social reform movement is to ensure a peaceful, decent and dignified life for every body without any social confrontation. But, unfortunately the Dalit activists are so obsessed and possessive in their approach towards the historical agony of their community that they have made the latter as prisoners of Dalitism, which hardly has any constructive plan for creation of a just social order. Their slogan for abolition of Varnashram (professional units) system and total abolition of caste is an utopian concept, which will never take root in the diverse and pluralistic Indian society.
Casteism is the bane of Indian society but the Indian people accept caste as a hard reality. Even the Christians and Muslims boast themselves of their upper caste heritage. In South India even Christians are maintaining visible distance from the Dalit Chritians as the latter continue to have separate church, separate burial ground and even separate places for social interactions. Similarly, even Muslims in India and Pakistan there is no inter- caste marriage among the Sheiks, Syed, Paithan and others because of their upper caste heritage before conversion.
The three Dalits groups and their separate agenda: As far as the present Dalit movement is concerned, it is in the hands of three vested interest groups of Dalit politicians, Dalt writers and Chrisian missionaries. Dalit political leaders like Kansi Ram and Ms Mayawati of Bahujan Samaj Party and Ram Vilas Paswan of Lok Jana Shakti are having their influence exclusively among the members of their own community. They can never come to power on their own due to their limited influence among the voters. For coming to power they are compelled to join some other parties dominated by caste Hindus. They are therefore, hardly in a position to bring any social change.
The second group, which claims to be the champion for the cause of Dalits is of Dalit writers. Their personal ambition and ego have kept them away from the common Dalits, who are illiterate and poor. They are more interested in their self-promotion than serving the cause of their community. Their possessiveness is often mistaken as love for Dalits. Since they do not get enough space in media to spit venom against the caste Hindus and are hardly in a position to play an effective role in electoral politics, they are always in search of the forces through which they could get national and international recognition. They have therefore, joined hand with forces (third group) determined to disintegrate the Hindu society.
The interest of the third group in Dalit movement is to de-Hinduise the Dalits and promote their proselytisational endeavour. The argument of this group that Christian society does not have any caste discrimination is not based on ground reality. The Dalit Christians are facing the problem of caste discrimination even in Christian society. Such discrimination is prevalent in Kerala even after the death of Dalit Christians, whose corpses do not find any place in the cemetery meant for upper caste convert Christians. T.V.Rajshekhar, a Dalit writer, while speaking in a seminar (Church and Dalit) organised by Christian leaders in Madras on June 14, 1986 said that Dalit Christians form about 80 percent Christian population in India but contrary to what Jesus Christ preached, the Dalit Christians are also the victim of caste discrimination as they have separate burial ground, separate churches and separate dwelling places.
Ever since the promulgation of presidential order No 19 of 1950 debarring the Dalits of non-Hindu and non-Sikh community to be included in the list of Scheduled castes, the Christian missionaries have been facing difficulty in alluring the Hindu Dalits for their conversion. For this they have already launched a movement for constitutional privileges for Dalit Christians. If they succeed in alienating the Dalits from Hindu social order, the entire Dalit community will get the benefit of constitutional provisions and it will help them in their mission for proselytisation.
Indian Social Institute(ISI), a Roman Catholic Mission outfit organised a meeting on "Durban and Dalit Discourse: Post Durban Scenario" on September 20. The meeting was organised with a view to forming a "broad alliance of disadvantaged section of society to battle the status quo that would prefer to keep them on the periphery of the country's social structure" (Hindu dated September 24). The move of the institute is to internationalise the issue. Had it not been so, it should first cleanse the Christian society in Kerala. In fact the Christian missionaries are also facing a dilemma of the isolation of Dalits from the affluent sections of the community. Dr. Prakash Luis, Executive Director of ISI said, "There is a sense of vertical divide within the community between the socially mobile 'Brahmanical Dalits' and the real Dalits among Dalits".
Conclusion: In the backdrop of the dialectics of Dalit movements, it appears that the Dalits have now become the victims of the politics of Dalitism being played by various groups. Instead of fighting the evils of caste discrimination in Hindu society, the Dalit movement has given birth to neo Dalitism, which hardly has any difference with the polluted Brahmanism.
The movement, which does not have the ingredients to bring about reconciliation among conflicting social groups and fails to accelerate the process of social harmony and human dignity, is bound to lose real direction. Dalits should therefore be very careful about the politics of Dalitism being played by vested interests not only at the cost of the disadvantaged community but also at the cost of social harmony, which is more dangerous for the nation.
By R.Upadhyay, 03. 10. 2001, South Asia Analysis Group, (The analysis in the paper is based on the personal perception of the writer)http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers4%5Cpaper331.html
Commandments of Baba Saheb Ambedkar
ACHIEVEMENTS
Nothing valuable in this world is achieved except by great efforts.
All great things in the world were achieved by patient industry and by undergoing toil and tribulations.
AHIMSA
Ahimsa Permo Dharma is an extreme Doctrine. It is a Jaina Doctrine. It is not Buddhist Doctrine. Buddha meant to make a distinction between 'will to kill' and 'need to kill'. What he banned was killing where there was nothing but the will to kill. Buddha made a distinction between principle and Rule. He did not make Ahimsa a matter of Rule. He enunciated it as a matter of \Principle or way of life. A Principle leaves you freedom to act. A rule does not. Rule either breaks you or you break the rule.
AMBITION
One should always cherish some ambition to do something in the world. They alone rise who strive.
ANARCHY
In anarchy and dictatorship, liberty is lost.
APPEASEMENT
Appeasement means buying off the aggressor by conniving at his acts of murder, arson and loot against innocent victims of his displeasure.
Appeasement sets no limits to the demands and aspirations of the aggressor.
ARMY
The ultimate guarantee of the independence of a country is a safe army - an army on which you can rely to fight for the country at all times and in any eventuality.
A safe army is better than a safe border.
BACK TO NATURE
The call of back to nature means back to nakedness, back to squalor, back to poverty and back to ignorance for the vast mass of people.
BUDDHISM
I prefer Buddhism because it gives three principles in combination, which no other religion does. Buddhism teaches Prajna (understanding as against superstition and supernaturalism), Karuna (love), and Samata (equality). This is what man wants for a good and happy life.
BUDDHIST CULTURE
Even though Buddhism is almost extinct in India, yet it has given birth to a culture, which is far better and richer than the Brahminic culture. When the question of the National Flag and the National Emblem was being considered by the Constituent Assembly we could not find any suitable symbol from the Brahminic culture. Ultimately, the Buddhist culture came to our rescue and we accepted the Wheel of Law (Dhamma - Chakra) as the National Symbol.
CASTE AND CLASS
Caste System is not merely a division of labour. It is also a division of labourers. It is an hierarchy in which the divisions of labourers are graded one above the other.
Caste has killed public spirit. Caste has destroyed the sense of public charity. Caste has made public opinion impossible. Virtue has become caste?ridden and morality has become caste?bound. There is no sympathy to the deserving. There is no appreciation of the meritorious.
There cannot be a more degrading system of social organisation than the Chaturvarna. It is the system which deadens, paralyses and cripples the people from helpful activity.
Caste in the hands of the orthodox has been a powerful weapon for persecuting the reforms and for killing all reform.
These castes are anti?national. In the first place because they bring about separation in social life. They are anti-national also because they generate jealousy and antipathy between caste and caste.
The Caste system is a system which is infested with the spirit of isolation and in fact it makes isolation of one Caste from another a virtue. There is isolation in the class system. But it does not make isolation virtue nor does it prohibit social intercourse. The class system, it is true produces groups, but they are not akin to Caste groups. The groups in the class system are only non-social while the Castes in the Castes system are in their mutual relations definitively and positively anti-social.
Practically speaking, in a class structure, there is on the one hand, tyranny, vanity, pride, arrogance, greed selfishness and on the other insecurity, poverty, degradation, loss of liberty, self?reliance, independence dignity and self-respect.
The group set?up prevents an individual from acquiring consistency of mind, which is possible only when society has common ideals, common models.
The group set?up leads to stratification of classes. Those who are masters remain masters and those who are born in slavery remain slaves. Owners remain owners and workers remain workers. The privileged remain privileged and the serfs remain serfs.
CONSTITUTION
I feel that the Constitution is workable; it is flexible and it is strong enough to hold the country together both in peacetime and in wartime. Indeed, if I may say so, if things go wrong under the new constitution the reason will not be that we had a bad Constitution. What we will have to say is that Man was vile.
COURAGE
The secret of freedom is courage and courage is born in combination of individuals into a party.
CULTURE
It is true that man shares the constitution and functions of animals, nutritive, reproductive etc. But these are not distinctively human functions. The distinctively human function is reason, the purpose of which is to enable man to observe, meditate, cogitate, study and discover the beauties of the universe and enrich his life and control the animal elements in his life.
What divides the brute from man is culture. Culture is not possible for the brute but it is essential for man.
The aim of human society must be to enable every person to lead a life of culture which means the cultivation of the mind as distinguished from the satisfaction of mere physical wants.
While the ultimate goal of a brute's life is reached once his physical appetites are satisfied, the ultimate goal of a man's existence is not reached unless and until he has fully cultivated his mind.
DEMOCRACY
Political Democracy rests on four premises, which may be set out in the following terms: (i) The individual is an end in himself. (ii) That the individual has certain inalienable rights, which must be guaranteed to him by the Constitution. (iii) That the individual shall not be required to relinquish any of his constitutional rights as a precondition precedent to the receipt of a privilege. (iv) That the State shall not delegate powers to private persons to govern others.
The soul of Democracy is the doctrine of one man, one value.
Democracy is a form and method of government whereby revolutionary changes in the economic and social life of the people are brought about without bloodshed.
Democracy is not merely a form of Government. It is primarily a mode of associated living of conjoined cominunicated experience. It is essentially an attitude of respect and reverence towards fellowmen.
Democracy is incompatible and inconsistent with isolation and exclusiveness, resulting in the distinction between the privileged and the unprivileged.
Democracy cannot work without friction unless there is fellow?feeling among those who constitute the State.
The first thing required for the successful working of democracy is that there must be no glaring inequalities and there must be neither an oppressed class nor a suppressed class. The second thing required is the existence of opposition to show whether the Govt. is going wrong. The third thing is equality before law and in administration. The fourth is the observance of constitutional morality. The fifth point is the functioning of moral order in society, for moral is taken for granted in the democracy. The sixth thing is the requirement of public conscience.
A democratic Government can remain democratic only if it is worked by two parties ?a party in power and a party in opposition.
DESPOTISM
To have popular government run by a single party is to let democracy become a mere form for despotism to play its part from behind it.
Despotism does not cease to be despotism because it is elective. Nor does despotism become agreeable because despots belong to our own kindred.
DHAMMA
According to the Buddha, Dhamma consists of Prajna and Karuna. Prajna is understanding. The Buddha made Prajna one of the two comer?stones of His Dhamma because he did not wish to leave any room for superstition. Karuna is love. Because, without it society can neither live nor grow, that is why the Buddha made it the second corner-stone of his Dhamma. A unique amalgam of Prajna and Karuna is the Dhamma of the Buddha.
In Dhamma there is no place for prayers, pilgrimages, rituals, ceremonies or sacrifices.
Dhamma is righteousness, which means right relations between man and man in all sphere of life.
DUTY
Blessed are those who are awakened to their duty to those among whom they are born.
The duty must be performed; let the efforts be successful or not; let the work be appreciated or not. When a man's sincerity of purpose and capacity are proved even his enemies come to respect him.
EDUCATION
Give up the idea that parents give 'Janma' to the child and not destiny (karma). They can mould the destiny of their children by giving them education.
Knowledge is the foundation of a man's life.
Education is as necessary for females as it is for males.
If one s education is detrimental to the welfare of the poor, the educated man is a curse to the society.
Character is more important than education.
ETHICS AND ECONOMICS
History shows that where ethics and economics come in conflict, victory is always with economics. Vested interests have never been known to have willingly divested themselves unless there was sufficient force to compel them.
EQUALITY
Equality may be a fiction but nonetheless one must accept it as e governing principle.
FATE
Do not believe in fate. Believe in your strength.
FORCE
Force, it cannot be denied, is the medicine of the body politic and must be administered when the body politic becomes sick. But just because force is the medicine of the body politic, it cannot be allowed to become its daily bread.
FRATERNITY
Fraternity is the name for the disposition of an individual to treat men as the object of reverence and love and the desire to be in unity with his fellow beings.
FREEDOM
Freedom of the nation, if it is to be a reality, must vouchsafe the freedom of the different classes comprised in it, particularly of those who are treated as the servile classes.
GLORY
Glory to those who devote their time, talents and their all to the annihilation of slavery.
Glory to those who would keep on their struggle for the liberation of the enslaved in spite of heavy odds, carping humiliations, storms and dangers till the down?trodden secure their human rights.
GREAT MAN
A great man must be motivated by the dynamics of a social purpose and must act as the scourge and the scavenger of the society.
HAPPINESS
Poverty gives rise to sorrow. But removal of poverty does not necessarily give rise to happiness. Not high standard of living but a standard of culture is what gives happiness.
HERO-WORSHIP
Bhakti(hero-worship) in religion may be a road to salvation of the self. But in politics, bhakti or hero-worship is a sure road to degradation and to eventual dictatorship.
Hero-worship in the sense of expressing our unbounded admiration is one thing. To obey the hero is a totally different kind of hero?worship. There is nothing wrong in the former while the latter is no doubt a most pernicious thing. The former is only man's respect for everything which is noble and of which the Great Man is only an embodiment. The former is consistent with respect, but the latter is a sign of debasement.
HINDUISM
Inequality is the soul of Hinduism.
To the Untouchables, Hinduism is a veritable chamber of horrors. The iron law of caste, the heartless law of karma and the senseless law of status by birth are veritable instruments of torture, which Hinduism has forged against the Untouchables.
HINDUISM AND BUDDHISM
There is a great difference between Buddhism and Hinduism. Buddhism means casteless society based on equal rights. Hinduism on the other hand is primarily based on caste?system; a system which encourages aloofness, inequality and exploitation.
Unlike Hinduism, Buddhism lays no emphasis on the attainment of heaven. Nor it is necessary. To be happy in the present life, one should practice the ethics of morality, non?violence (ahimsa), equality and universal brotherhood. This is an eternal truth taught by the Buddha.
HISTORY
They cannot make history who forget history.
It is quite wrong to hold that man is not a factor in the making of history. Man is necessary to rub two pieces of flint to make fire.
Man is a factor in the making of history and the environmental forces, whether impersonal or social, if they are, they are the first and not the last things.
HISTORY OF INDIA
The history of India is said to begin with the Aryans who invaded India, made it their home and established their culture. Whatever may be the virtues of the Aryans, their culture, their religion and their social system, we know very littler about their political history. Indeed notwithstanding the superiority that is claimed for the Aryans as against the Non?Aryans, the Aryans have left very little their political achievements for history to speak of. The political history of India begins with the rise of a non?Aryan people called Nagas, who were a powerful people, whom the Aryans were unable to conquer, with whom the Aryans had to make peace, and whom the Aryans were compelled to recognize as their equals. Whatever fame and glory India achieved in ancient times in the political field, the credit for it goes entirely to the Non-Aryan Nagas. It is they who made India great and glorious in the annals of the world.
There is only one period in Indian history, which is a period of freedom, greatness and glory. This is the period of Maurya Empire. At all other times, the country suffered from defeat and darkness.
It must be recognized that there has never been such as a common Indian culture, that historically there have been three Indias, Brahminic India, Buddhist India and Hindu India, each with its own culture. Secondly, it must be recognized that the history of India before the Muslim invasions is the history of a mortal conflict between Brahmanism and Buddhism. Any one who does not recognize these two facts will never to able to write a true history of India, a history which will disclose the meaning and purposes running through it.
IDEAS
Men are mortal. So are ideas. An idea needs propagation as much as a plant needs watering. Both will otherwise wither and die.
IDEAL SOCIETY
My (Dr. B. R. Ambedkar) ideal would be a society based on Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. An ideal society should be mobile, should be full of channels for conveying a change taking place in one part to other parts. In an ideal society there should be many interests consciously communicated and shared. There should be varied and free points of contact with other modes of association. In other words, there must be social endosmosis.
INDIANS FIRST AND LAST
I do not want that our loyalty as Indians should be in the slightest way affected by any competitive loyalty whether that loyalty arises out of our religion, out of our culture or out of our language. I want all people to be Indians first, Indian last and nothing else but Indians.
INDIFFERENTISM
Indifferentism is the worst kind of disease that can infect a people.
INSTRUCTION
What instructs me, amuses me.
INTELLECTUAL
There is a world of difference between one who is learned and who is an intellectual. The former is class?conscious and is alive to the interests of his class. The latter is emancipated being who is free to act without being swayed by class considerations.
LANGUAGE
One language can unite people. Two languages are sure to divide people. This is an inexorable law.
Culture is conserved by language.
LAW
Law is the abode of all worldly happiness.
LAW AND FRATERNITY
Law is secular which anybody may break while fraternity or religion is sacred which everybody must respect.
LEISURE
Leisure means the lessening of the toil and effort necessary for satisfying the physical wants of life.
LIBERTY
Liberty falls under two classes. There is civil liberty and there is political liberty. Civil liberty refers to (1) liberty of movement, which is another name for freedom from arrest without due process of law; (2) liberty of speech (which of course includes liberty of thought, liberty of reading writing and discussion); and (3) liberty of action.
The first kind of liberty is of course fundamental. Not only fundamental, it is also most essential. About its value, there can be no manner of doubt. The second kind of liberty, which may be called freedom of opinion, is important for many reasons. It is a necessary condition of all progress: intellectual, moral, political and social. Where it does not exist the status?quo becomes stereotyped and all originality even the most necessary is discouraged. Liberty of action means doing what one likes to do. It is not enough that liberty of action should be formal. It must be real. So understood, liberty of action means effective power to do specific things. There is no freedom where they're also no means of taking advantage of it. Real liberty of action exists only where exploitation has been annihilated, where no suppression of one class by another exists, where there is no unemployment, no poverty and where a person is free from the fear of losing his job, his home, and his food as a consequence of his action.
Political liberty consists in the right of the individual to share in the framing of laws and in the making and unmaking of governments.
LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY
Liberty cannot be divorced from equality, equality cannot be divorced from liberty. Nor can liberty and equality be divorced from fraternity. Without equality, liberty would produce the supremacy of the few over the many. Equality without liberty would kill individual initiative. Without fraternity, liberty and equality could not become a natural course of things.
LINGUISTIC STATE
A linguistic State with its regional language as its official language may easily develop into an independent nationality. The road between an independent nationality and an independent State is very narrow. If this happens, India will cease to be modern India we have and will become the medieval India consisting of a variety of States indulging in rivalry and warfare.
LOST RIGHTS
Lost rights are never regained by begging and by appeals to the conscience of the usurpers, but by relentless struggle.
LOVE AND HATRED
No one can hope to make any effective mark upon his time and bring the aid that is worth bringing to great principles and struggling causes if he is not strong in his love and his hatred.
MACHINERY
Machinery and modern civilization are indispensable for emancipating man from leading the life of a brute, and for providing him with leisure and making a life of culture possible.
The slogan of a democratic society must be machinery and more machinery, civilization and more civilization.
MAN'S POWER
A man's power is dependent upon (1) physical heredity, (2) social inheritance or endowment in the form of parental care, education, accumulation of scientific knowledge, everything that enables him to be more efficient than the savage and finally, (3) on his own efforts.
MIND
Man is what mind makes of him.
For inspiration and enthusiasm one must have a healthy and sound mind. Man derives inspiration if his mind is free to develop.
The world cannot be reformed except by the reformation of the mind of the man, and the mind of the world.
MISERY
Man's misery is the result of man's inequity to man. Only righteousness can remove this inequity and the resultant misery.
NATIONAL FEELING
The national feeling is a feeling of a corporate sentiment of oneness which makes those who are charged with it feel that they are kith and kin.
NATIONAL LANGUAGE
Since Indians wish to unite and develop a common culture it is the duty of the all Indians to own up Hindi as their language.
NATIONALITY
Nationality means "Consciousness of kind, awareness of the existence of that tie of kinship".
NATIONALISM
Nationalism means "The desire for separate national existence for those who are bound by their tie of kinship".
NOBLE LIFE
Man is mortal. Every one is to die some day or other. But one must resolve to lay down one's life in enriching the noble ideals of self-respect and in bettering human life.
Man must eat to live and he should live and work for the well being of the society.
Dragging on life some?how or to live like a crow for a thousand years is not the only way and worthy way in this world. Life can be ennobled by sacrificing it for a lasting good such as the cause of truth, a vow, honour or country.
Better to die in the prime of youth for a great cause than to live like an oak and do nothing.
NORMS
Ideals or norms are good and necessary. Neither a society nor an individual can do without a norm. But a norm must change with change in time and circumstances. No norm can be permanently fixed. There must always be room for revaluation of the values of our norm.
PARENTS
There will be no difference between parents and animals if they will not desire to see their children in a better position than their own.
PHILOSOPHY OF LIFE
Every one should have a philosophy of life, for every one must have a standard by which to measure his conduct. And philosophy is nothing but a standard by which to measure. My social philosophy may be said to be enshrined in three words: Liberty, equality and fraternity. Let no one, however, say that I have borrowed my philosophy from the French Revolution. I have not. My philosophy has roots in religion and not in political science. I have derived them from the teachings of my master, the Buddha.
PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGION
The difference between philosophy and religion may be put in two ways. Philosophy is concerned with knowing truth. Religion is concerned with the love of truth. Philosophy is static. Religion is dynamic.
POLITICAL POWER
Political power is the key to all social progress.
Political power is the most precious thing in the life of a community especially if its position is constantly being challenged and the community is required to maintain it by meeting challenge. Political power is the only means by which it can sustain its position.
POLITICAL REVOLUTIONS
Puritanism founded the new world. It was Puritanism, which won the war of American Independence, and Puritanism was a religious movement. The same is true of the Muslim Empire. Before the Arabs became a political power, they had undergone a thorough religious revolution started by Prophet Mohammed. Even Indian History supports the same conclusion. The political revolution led by Chandragupta was preceded by the religious and social revolution of Buddha. The political revolution led by Shivaji was preceded by the religious and social reform brought about by the saints of Maharashtra. The political revolution of the Sikhs was preceded by the religious and social revolution led by Guru Nanak.
POLITICS
Politics is nothing if not realistic. There is very little in it that is academic.
POVERTY
Renunciation of riches by those who have it may be a blessed state. But poverty can never be. To declare poverty to be a blessed state is to pervert religion, to perpetuate vice and crime, to consent to make earth a living hell.
The poor are made to suffer wants, privations and humiliations not because it was pre?ordained by the sins committed in their previous births, but because of the overpowering tyranny and treachery of those who are above them.
The sooner the poor remove the foolish belief that their miseries were pre?ordained, the better.
The thought that poverty is an inevitability and is inborn and inseparable is entirely erroneous.
POWER AND WISDOM
Power is one thing, and wisdom and prudence quite a different thing.
PROGRESS
The good things of this earth do not fall from heaven. Every progress has its bill of costs and only those who pay for it will have that progress.
REBELS
The world owes much to rebels who would dare to argue in the face of pontiff and insist that he is not infallible.
RELIGION
Religion is not an opium as it is held by some. What good things I have in me or whatever have been the benefits of my education to society, I owe them to the religious feelings in me. I want religion but I do not want hypocrisy in the name of religion.
Man cannot live by bread alone. He has a mind which needs food for thought. Religion instils hope in man and drives him to activity.
Religion is for man and not man for religion.
Religion and slavery are incompatible.
Religion in the sense of morality must remain the governing principle in every society.
Religion if it is to function must be in accord with reason which is merely another name for science.
Religion must recognise the fundamental tenets of liberty, equality and fraternity. Unless a religion recognises these three fundamental principles of social life, religion will be doomed.
Religion must not sanctify or ennoble poverty.
RELIGION AND MORALITY
As a matter of truth, morality has no place in religion.
The content of religion consists of God, soul, prayers, worship, rituals, ceremonies and sacrifices.
Morality comes in only wherein man comes in relation to man.
Morality comes in into religion as a side wind to maintain peace and order.
Be good to your neighbour because you are both children of god. That is the argument of religion.
Every religion preaches morality but morality is not the root of religion. It is a wagon attached to it. It is attached and detached, as the occasion requires. The action of morality in the functioning of religion is therefore, casual and occasional.
RESPONSIBILITY
No thinking human being can be tied down to a view once expressed in the name of consistency. More important than consistency is responsibility. A responsible person must learn to unlearn what he has learned. A responsible person must have the courage to re?think and change his thoughts. Of course, there must be good and sufficient reasons for unlearning what he has learned and for recasting his thoughts. There can be no finality in thinking.
RIGHTS
Rights are protected not by law but by the social and moral conscience of society. If social conscience is such that it is prepared to recognise the laws which law chooses to enact, rights will be safe and secure. But if fundamental rights are opposed by the community, no law, no Parliament, no judiciary can guarantee them in real sense of the word.
SECULARISM
The conception of a secular state is derived from the liberal democratic tradition of the west. No institution, which is maintained wholly out of state funds, shall be used for the purpose of religious instruction irrespective of the question whether the religious instruction is given by the state or by any other body.
It (secular state) does not mean that we shall not take into consideration the religious sentiments of the people. All that a secular state means is that this Parliament shall not be competent to impose any particular religion upon the rest of the people. That is the only limitation that the Constitution recognises.
SELF-HELP
You must stand on your own feet and fight as best you can for your rights. Power and, prestige will come to you through struggle.
It is not enough that a people are numerically in majority. They must be always watchful, strong, well?educated and self?respecting to attain and maintain success.
Whatever might be one's ideal, either of national progress or of self?development, one should patiently exert oneself to reach it.
One should concentrate one's mind and might on one's goal.
SELF-RESPECT
Self-respect is the most vital factor in life. Without it, man is a mere cipher.
Nothing is more disgraceful for a brave man than to live a life devoid of self-respect and without love for the country.
Learn to live in this world with self-respect.
No race can be raised by destroying its self-respect.
SOCIAL CONSCIENCE
Social conscience is the only safeguard of all rights, fundamental or non-fundamental.
SOCIAL DEMOCRACY
Social democracy means a way of life, which recognises liberty, equality and fraternity as the principle of life.
A democratic form of Government presupposes a democratic form of society. The formal framework of democracy is of no value and would indeed be misfit if there were no social democracy. The politicians never realised that democracy was not a form of government; it was essentially a form of society. It may not be necessary for a democratic society to be marked by unity, by community of purpose, by loyalty to public ends and by mutuality of sympathy. But it does unmistakably involve two things. The first is an attitude of mind, an attitude of respect and equality towards their fellows. The second is a social organisation free from rigid social barriers.
SOCIAL EVILS
Wherever there are social evils, the health of the body politic requires that they shall be removed before they become the symbols of suffering and injustice. For it is the social and economic of revolution or decay.
SOCIAL TYRANNY
Political tyranny is nothing compared to social tyranny and a reformer, who defies society, is a much more courageous man than a politician, who defies Government.
SOCIETY
Making of the individual a sharer or partner in the associated activity so that he feels its success as his success and its failure as his failure is the real thing that binds men and makes a society of them.
The society must have either the sanction of law or the sanction of morality to hold it together. Without either, society is sure to go to pieces.
More than political or religious, man is a social animal. He may not have, need not have religion; he may not have needed not have politics. He must have society; he cannot do without society.
SLAVE
Tell the slave he is a slave and he will revolt.
To a slave, his master may be better or worse. But there cannot be a good master. A good man cannot be a master and a master cannot be a good man.
SLAVERY
Slavery does not merely mean a legalised form of subjection. It means a state of society in which some men are forced to accept from others the purposes, which control their conduct.
STRIKE
Strike is a civil wrong and not a crime, and making a man serve against his will is nothing less than making him a slave.
SURVIVAL
It is not survival but the quality, the plane of survival that is important.
There is no honour in mere survival. What matters is the plane of survival. One can survive by unconditional surrender. One can survive by beating a cowardly retreat and one can survive by fighting.
STATE SOCIALISM
State socialism should be prescribed by the law of the Constitution so that it will be beyond the reach of a Parliamentary majority to suspend, and amend or abrogate it. It is only this that one can achieve the triple object. Namely, to establish Socialism, retain Parliamentary Democracy and avoid Dictatorship.
UNCONSTITUTIONAL METHODS
When there was no way left for constitutional methods for achieving economic and social objectives, there was some justification for unconstitutional methods for achieving economic and social objectives. But where constitutional methods are open there can be no justification for these unconstitutional methods. These methods are nothing but the Grammar of Anarchy.
UNITY
If unity is to be an abiding factor, it must be founded on a sense of kinship, in the feeling of being kindred. In short, it must be spiritual.
VIRTUE IN DANGER
Where virtue is in danger, do not avoid fighting, do not be mealy mouthed.
see: http://www.ambedkar.org/
Nothing valuable in this world is achieved except by great efforts.
All great things in the world were achieved by patient industry and by undergoing toil and tribulations.
AHIMSA
Ahimsa Permo Dharma is an extreme Doctrine. It is a Jaina Doctrine. It is not Buddhist Doctrine. Buddha meant to make a distinction between 'will to kill' and 'need to kill'. What he banned was killing where there was nothing but the will to kill. Buddha made a distinction between principle and Rule. He did not make Ahimsa a matter of Rule. He enunciated it as a matter of \Principle or way of life. A Principle leaves you freedom to act. A rule does not. Rule either breaks you or you break the rule.
AMBITION
One should always cherish some ambition to do something in the world. They alone rise who strive.
ANARCHY
In anarchy and dictatorship, liberty is lost.
APPEASEMENT
Appeasement means buying off the aggressor by conniving at his acts of murder, arson and loot against innocent victims of his displeasure.
Appeasement sets no limits to the demands and aspirations of the aggressor.
ARMY
The ultimate guarantee of the independence of a country is a safe army - an army on which you can rely to fight for the country at all times and in any eventuality.
A safe army is better than a safe border.
BACK TO NATURE
The call of back to nature means back to nakedness, back to squalor, back to poverty and back to ignorance for the vast mass of people.
BUDDHISM
I prefer Buddhism because it gives three principles in combination, which no other religion does. Buddhism teaches Prajna (understanding as against superstition and supernaturalism), Karuna (love), and Samata (equality). This is what man wants for a good and happy life.
BUDDHIST CULTURE
Even though Buddhism is almost extinct in India, yet it has given birth to a culture, which is far better and richer than the Brahminic culture. When the question of the National Flag and the National Emblem was being considered by the Constituent Assembly we could not find any suitable symbol from the Brahminic culture. Ultimately, the Buddhist culture came to our rescue and we accepted the Wheel of Law (Dhamma - Chakra) as the National Symbol.
CASTE AND CLASS
Caste System is not merely a division of labour. It is also a division of labourers. It is an hierarchy in which the divisions of labourers are graded one above the other.
Caste has killed public spirit. Caste has destroyed the sense of public charity. Caste has made public opinion impossible. Virtue has become caste?ridden and morality has become caste?bound. There is no sympathy to the deserving. There is no appreciation of the meritorious.
There cannot be a more degrading system of social organisation than the Chaturvarna. It is the system which deadens, paralyses and cripples the people from helpful activity.
Caste in the hands of the orthodox has been a powerful weapon for persecuting the reforms and for killing all reform.
These castes are anti?national. In the first place because they bring about separation in social life. They are anti-national also because they generate jealousy and antipathy between caste and caste.
The Caste system is a system which is infested with the spirit of isolation and in fact it makes isolation of one Caste from another a virtue. There is isolation in the class system. But it does not make isolation virtue nor does it prohibit social intercourse. The class system, it is true produces groups, but they are not akin to Caste groups. The groups in the class system are only non-social while the Castes in the Castes system are in their mutual relations definitively and positively anti-social.
Practically speaking, in a class structure, there is on the one hand, tyranny, vanity, pride, arrogance, greed selfishness and on the other insecurity, poverty, degradation, loss of liberty, self?reliance, independence dignity and self-respect.
The group set?up prevents an individual from acquiring consistency of mind, which is possible only when society has common ideals, common models.
The group set?up leads to stratification of classes. Those who are masters remain masters and those who are born in slavery remain slaves. Owners remain owners and workers remain workers. The privileged remain privileged and the serfs remain serfs.
CONSTITUTION
I feel that the Constitution is workable; it is flexible and it is strong enough to hold the country together both in peacetime and in wartime. Indeed, if I may say so, if things go wrong under the new constitution the reason will not be that we had a bad Constitution. What we will have to say is that Man was vile.
COURAGE
The secret of freedom is courage and courage is born in combination of individuals into a party.
CULTURE
It is true that man shares the constitution and functions of animals, nutritive, reproductive etc. But these are not distinctively human functions. The distinctively human function is reason, the purpose of which is to enable man to observe, meditate, cogitate, study and discover the beauties of the universe and enrich his life and control the animal elements in his life.
What divides the brute from man is culture. Culture is not possible for the brute but it is essential for man.
The aim of human society must be to enable every person to lead a life of culture which means the cultivation of the mind as distinguished from the satisfaction of mere physical wants.
While the ultimate goal of a brute's life is reached once his physical appetites are satisfied, the ultimate goal of a man's existence is not reached unless and until he has fully cultivated his mind.
DEMOCRACY
Political Democracy rests on four premises, which may be set out in the following terms: (i) The individual is an end in himself. (ii) That the individual has certain inalienable rights, which must be guaranteed to him by the Constitution. (iii) That the individual shall not be required to relinquish any of his constitutional rights as a precondition precedent to the receipt of a privilege. (iv) That the State shall not delegate powers to private persons to govern others.
The soul of Democracy is the doctrine of one man, one value.
Democracy is a form and method of government whereby revolutionary changes in the economic and social life of the people are brought about without bloodshed.
Democracy is not merely a form of Government. It is primarily a mode of associated living of conjoined cominunicated experience. It is essentially an attitude of respect and reverence towards fellowmen.
Democracy is incompatible and inconsistent with isolation and exclusiveness, resulting in the distinction between the privileged and the unprivileged.
Democracy cannot work without friction unless there is fellow?feeling among those who constitute the State.
The first thing required for the successful working of democracy is that there must be no glaring inequalities and there must be neither an oppressed class nor a suppressed class. The second thing required is the existence of opposition to show whether the Govt. is going wrong. The third thing is equality before law and in administration. The fourth is the observance of constitutional morality. The fifth point is the functioning of moral order in society, for moral is taken for granted in the democracy. The sixth thing is the requirement of public conscience.
A democratic Government can remain democratic only if it is worked by two parties ?a party in power and a party in opposition.
DESPOTISM
To have popular government run by a single party is to let democracy become a mere form for despotism to play its part from behind it.
Despotism does not cease to be despotism because it is elective. Nor does despotism become agreeable because despots belong to our own kindred.
DHAMMA
According to the Buddha, Dhamma consists of Prajna and Karuna. Prajna is understanding. The Buddha made Prajna one of the two comer?stones of His Dhamma because he did not wish to leave any room for superstition. Karuna is love. Because, without it society can neither live nor grow, that is why the Buddha made it the second corner-stone of his Dhamma. A unique amalgam of Prajna and Karuna is the Dhamma of the Buddha.
In Dhamma there is no place for prayers, pilgrimages, rituals, ceremonies or sacrifices.
Dhamma is righteousness, which means right relations between man and man in all sphere of life.
DUTY
Blessed are those who are awakened to their duty to those among whom they are born.
The duty must be performed; let the efforts be successful or not; let the work be appreciated or not. When a man's sincerity of purpose and capacity are proved even his enemies come to respect him.
EDUCATION
Give up the idea that parents give 'Janma' to the child and not destiny (karma). They can mould the destiny of their children by giving them education.
Knowledge is the foundation of a man's life.
Education is as necessary for females as it is for males.
If one s education is detrimental to the welfare of the poor, the educated man is a curse to the society.
Character is more important than education.
ETHICS AND ECONOMICS
History shows that where ethics and economics come in conflict, victory is always with economics. Vested interests have never been known to have willingly divested themselves unless there was sufficient force to compel them.
EQUALITY
Equality may be a fiction but nonetheless one must accept it as e governing principle.
FATE
Do not believe in fate. Believe in your strength.
FORCE
Force, it cannot be denied, is the medicine of the body politic and must be administered when the body politic becomes sick. But just because force is the medicine of the body politic, it cannot be allowed to become its daily bread.
FRATERNITY
Fraternity is the name for the disposition of an individual to treat men as the object of reverence and love and the desire to be in unity with his fellow beings.
FREEDOM
Freedom of the nation, if it is to be a reality, must vouchsafe the freedom of the different classes comprised in it, particularly of those who are treated as the servile classes.
GLORY
Glory to those who devote their time, talents and their all to the annihilation of slavery.
Glory to those who would keep on their struggle for the liberation of the enslaved in spite of heavy odds, carping humiliations, storms and dangers till the down?trodden secure their human rights.
GREAT MAN
A great man must be motivated by the dynamics of a social purpose and must act as the scourge and the scavenger of the society.
HAPPINESS
Poverty gives rise to sorrow. But removal of poverty does not necessarily give rise to happiness. Not high standard of living but a standard of culture is what gives happiness.
HERO-WORSHIP
Bhakti(hero-worship) in religion may be a road to salvation of the self. But in politics, bhakti or hero-worship is a sure road to degradation and to eventual dictatorship.
Hero-worship in the sense of expressing our unbounded admiration is one thing. To obey the hero is a totally different kind of hero?worship. There is nothing wrong in the former while the latter is no doubt a most pernicious thing. The former is only man's respect for everything which is noble and of which the Great Man is only an embodiment. The former is consistent with respect, but the latter is a sign of debasement.
HINDUISM
Inequality is the soul of Hinduism.
To the Untouchables, Hinduism is a veritable chamber of horrors. The iron law of caste, the heartless law of karma and the senseless law of status by birth are veritable instruments of torture, which Hinduism has forged against the Untouchables.
HINDUISM AND BUDDHISM
There is a great difference between Buddhism and Hinduism. Buddhism means casteless society based on equal rights. Hinduism on the other hand is primarily based on caste?system; a system which encourages aloofness, inequality and exploitation.
Unlike Hinduism, Buddhism lays no emphasis on the attainment of heaven. Nor it is necessary. To be happy in the present life, one should practice the ethics of morality, non?violence (ahimsa), equality and universal brotherhood. This is an eternal truth taught by the Buddha.
HISTORY
They cannot make history who forget history.
It is quite wrong to hold that man is not a factor in the making of history. Man is necessary to rub two pieces of flint to make fire.
Man is a factor in the making of history and the environmental forces, whether impersonal or social, if they are, they are the first and not the last things.
HISTORY OF INDIA
The history of India is said to begin with the Aryans who invaded India, made it their home and established their culture. Whatever may be the virtues of the Aryans, their culture, their religion and their social system, we know very littler about their political history. Indeed notwithstanding the superiority that is claimed for the Aryans as against the Non?Aryans, the Aryans have left very little their political achievements for history to speak of. The political history of India begins with the rise of a non?Aryan people called Nagas, who were a powerful people, whom the Aryans were unable to conquer, with whom the Aryans had to make peace, and whom the Aryans were compelled to recognize as their equals. Whatever fame and glory India achieved in ancient times in the political field, the credit for it goes entirely to the Non-Aryan Nagas. It is they who made India great and glorious in the annals of the world.
There is only one period in Indian history, which is a period of freedom, greatness and glory. This is the period of Maurya Empire. At all other times, the country suffered from defeat and darkness.
It must be recognized that there has never been such as a common Indian culture, that historically there have been three Indias, Brahminic India, Buddhist India and Hindu India, each with its own culture. Secondly, it must be recognized that the history of India before the Muslim invasions is the history of a mortal conflict between Brahmanism and Buddhism. Any one who does not recognize these two facts will never to able to write a true history of India, a history which will disclose the meaning and purposes running through it.
IDEAS
Men are mortal. So are ideas. An idea needs propagation as much as a plant needs watering. Both will otherwise wither and die.
IDEAL SOCIETY
My (Dr. B. R. Ambedkar) ideal would be a society based on Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. An ideal society should be mobile, should be full of channels for conveying a change taking place in one part to other parts. In an ideal society there should be many interests consciously communicated and shared. There should be varied and free points of contact with other modes of association. In other words, there must be social endosmosis.
INDIANS FIRST AND LAST
I do not want that our loyalty as Indians should be in the slightest way affected by any competitive loyalty whether that loyalty arises out of our religion, out of our culture or out of our language. I want all people to be Indians first, Indian last and nothing else but Indians.
INDIFFERENTISM
Indifferentism is the worst kind of disease that can infect a people.
INSTRUCTION
What instructs me, amuses me.
INTELLECTUAL
There is a world of difference between one who is learned and who is an intellectual. The former is class?conscious and is alive to the interests of his class. The latter is emancipated being who is free to act without being swayed by class considerations.
LANGUAGE
One language can unite people. Two languages are sure to divide people. This is an inexorable law.
Culture is conserved by language.
LAW
Law is the abode of all worldly happiness.
LAW AND FRATERNITY
Law is secular which anybody may break while fraternity or religion is sacred which everybody must respect.
LEISURE
Leisure means the lessening of the toil and effort necessary for satisfying the physical wants of life.
LIBERTY
Liberty falls under two classes. There is civil liberty and there is political liberty. Civil liberty refers to (1) liberty of movement, which is another name for freedom from arrest without due process of law; (2) liberty of speech (which of course includes liberty of thought, liberty of reading writing and discussion); and (3) liberty of action.
The first kind of liberty is of course fundamental. Not only fundamental, it is also most essential. About its value, there can be no manner of doubt. The second kind of liberty, which may be called freedom of opinion, is important for many reasons. It is a necessary condition of all progress: intellectual, moral, political and social. Where it does not exist the status?quo becomes stereotyped and all originality even the most necessary is discouraged. Liberty of action means doing what one likes to do. It is not enough that liberty of action should be formal. It must be real. So understood, liberty of action means effective power to do specific things. There is no freedom where they're also no means of taking advantage of it. Real liberty of action exists only where exploitation has been annihilated, where no suppression of one class by another exists, where there is no unemployment, no poverty and where a person is free from the fear of losing his job, his home, and his food as a consequence of his action.
Political liberty consists in the right of the individual to share in the framing of laws and in the making and unmaking of governments.
LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY
Liberty cannot be divorced from equality, equality cannot be divorced from liberty. Nor can liberty and equality be divorced from fraternity. Without equality, liberty would produce the supremacy of the few over the many. Equality without liberty would kill individual initiative. Without fraternity, liberty and equality could not become a natural course of things.
LINGUISTIC STATE
A linguistic State with its regional language as its official language may easily develop into an independent nationality. The road between an independent nationality and an independent State is very narrow. If this happens, India will cease to be modern India we have and will become the medieval India consisting of a variety of States indulging in rivalry and warfare.
LOST RIGHTS
Lost rights are never regained by begging and by appeals to the conscience of the usurpers, but by relentless struggle.
LOVE AND HATRED
No one can hope to make any effective mark upon his time and bring the aid that is worth bringing to great principles and struggling causes if he is not strong in his love and his hatred.
MACHINERY
Machinery and modern civilization are indispensable for emancipating man from leading the life of a brute, and for providing him with leisure and making a life of culture possible.
The slogan of a democratic society must be machinery and more machinery, civilization and more civilization.
MAN'S POWER
A man's power is dependent upon (1) physical heredity, (2) social inheritance or endowment in the form of parental care, education, accumulation of scientific knowledge, everything that enables him to be more efficient than the savage and finally, (3) on his own efforts.
MIND
Man is what mind makes of him.
For inspiration and enthusiasm one must have a healthy and sound mind. Man derives inspiration if his mind is free to develop.
The world cannot be reformed except by the reformation of the mind of the man, and the mind of the world.
MISERY
Man's misery is the result of man's inequity to man. Only righteousness can remove this inequity and the resultant misery.
NATIONAL FEELING
The national feeling is a feeling of a corporate sentiment of oneness which makes those who are charged with it feel that they are kith and kin.
NATIONAL LANGUAGE
Since Indians wish to unite and develop a common culture it is the duty of the all Indians to own up Hindi as their language.
NATIONALITY
Nationality means "Consciousness of kind, awareness of the existence of that tie of kinship".
NATIONALISM
Nationalism means "The desire for separate national existence for those who are bound by their tie of kinship".
NOBLE LIFE
Man is mortal. Every one is to die some day or other. But one must resolve to lay down one's life in enriching the noble ideals of self-respect and in bettering human life.
Man must eat to live and he should live and work for the well being of the society.
Dragging on life some?how or to live like a crow for a thousand years is not the only way and worthy way in this world. Life can be ennobled by sacrificing it for a lasting good such as the cause of truth, a vow, honour or country.
Better to die in the prime of youth for a great cause than to live like an oak and do nothing.
NORMS
Ideals or norms are good and necessary. Neither a society nor an individual can do without a norm. But a norm must change with change in time and circumstances. No norm can be permanently fixed. There must always be room for revaluation of the values of our norm.
PARENTS
There will be no difference between parents and animals if they will not desire to see their children in a better position than their own.
PHILOSOPHY OF LIFE
Every one should have a philosophy of life, for every one must have a standard by which to measure his conduct. And philosophy is nothing but a standard by which to measure. My social philosophy may be said to be enshrined in three words: Liberty, equality and fraternity. Let no one, however, say that I have borrowed my philosophy from the French Revolution. I have not. My philosophy has roots in religion and not in political science. I have derived them from the teachings of my master, the Buddha.
PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGION
The difference between philosophy and religion may be put in two ways. Philosophy is concerned with knowing truth. Religion is concerned with the love of truth. Philosophy is static. Religion is dynamic.
POLITICAL POWER
Political power is the key to all social progress.
Political power is the most precious thing in the life of a community especially if its position is constantly being challenged and the community is required to maintain it by meeting challenge. Political power is the only means by which it can sustain its position.
POLITICAL REVOLUTIONS
Puritanism founded the new world. It was Puritanism, which won the war of American Independence, and Puritanism was a religious movement. The same is true of the Muslim Empire. Before the Arabs became a political power, they had undergone a thorough religious revolution started by Prophet Mohammed. Even Indian History supports the same conclusion. The political revolution led by Chandragupta was preceded by the religious and social revolution of Buddha. The political revolution led by Shivaji was preceded by the religious and social reform brought about by the saints of Maharashtra. The political revolution of the Sikhs was preceded by the religious and social revolution led by Guru Nanak.
POLITICS
Politics is nothing if not realistic. There is very little in it that is academic.
POVERTY
Renunciation of riches by those who have it may be a blessed state. But poverty can never be. To declare poverty to be a blessed state is to pervert religion, to perpetuate vice and crime, to consent to make earth a living hell.
The poor are made to suffer wants, privations and humiliations not because it was pre?ordained by the sins committed in their previous births, but because of the overpowering tyranny and treachery of those who are above them.
The sooner the poor remove the foolish belief that their miseries were pre?ordained, the better.
The thought that poverty is an inevitability and is inborn and inseparable is entirely erroneous.
POWER AND WISDOM
Power is one thing, and wisdom and prudence quite a different thing.
PROGRESS
The good things of this earth do not fall from heaven. Every progress has its bill of costs and only those who pay for it will have that progress.
REBELS
The world owes much to rebels who would dare to argue in the face of pontiff and insist that he is not infallible.
RELIGION
Religion is not an opium as it is held by some. What good things I have in me or whatever have been the benefits of my education to society, I owe them to the religious feelings in me. I want religion but I do not want hypocrisy in the name of religion.
Man cannot live by bread alone. He has a mind which needs food for thought. Religion instils hope in man and drives him to activity.
Religion is for man and not man for religion.
Religion and slavery are incompatible.
Religion in the sense of morality must remain the governing principle in every society.
Religion if it is to function must be in accord with reason which is merely another name for science.
Religion must recognise the fundamental tenets of liberty, equality and fraternity. Unless a religion recognises these three fundamental principles of social life, religion will be doomed.
Religion must not sanctify or ennoble poverty.
RELIGION AND MORALITY
As a matter of truth, morality has no place in religion.
The content of religion consists of God, soul, prayers, worship, rituals, ceremonies and sacrifices.
Morality comes in only wherein man comes in relation to man.
Morality comes in into religion as a side wind to maintain peace and order.
Be good to your neighbour because you are both children of god. That is the argument of religion.
Every religion preaches morality but morality is not the root of religion. It is a wagon attached to it. It is attached and detached, as the occasion requires. The action of morality in the functioning of religion is therefore, casual and occasional.
RESPONSIBILITY
No thinking human being can be tied down to a view once expressed in the name of consistency. More important than consistency is responsibility. A responsible person must learn to unlearn what he has learned. A responsible person must have the courage to re?think and change his thoughts. Of course, there must be good and sufficient reasons for unlearning what he has learned and for recasting his thoughts. There can be no finality in thinking.
RIGHTS
Rights are protected not by law but by the social and moral conscience of society. If social conscience is such that it is prepared to recognise the laws which law chooses to enact, rights will be safe and secure. But if fundamental rights are opposed by the community, no law, no Parliament, no judiciary can guarantee them in real sense of the word.
SECULARISM
The conception of a secular state is derived from the liberal democratic tradition of the west. No institution, which is maintained wholly out of state funds, shall be used for the purpose of religious instruction irrespective of the question whether the religious instruction is given by the state or by any other body.
It (secular state) does not mean that we shall not take into consideration the religious sentiments of the people. All that a secular state means is that this Parliament shall not be competent to impose any particular religion upon the rest of the people. That is the only limitation that the Constitution recognises.
SELF-HELP
You must stand on your own feet and fight as best you can for your rights. Power and, prestige will come to you through struggle.
It is not enough that a people are numerically in majority. They must be always watchful, strong, well?educated and self?respecting to attain and maintain success.
Whatever might be one's ideal, either of national progress or of self?development, one should patiently exert oneself to reach it.
One should concentrate one's mind and might on one's goal.
SELF-RESPECT
Self-respect is the most vital factor in life. Without it, man is a mere cipher.
Nothing is more disgraceful for a brave man than to live a life devoid of self-respect and without love for the country.
Learn to live in this world with self-respect.
No race can be raised by destroying its self-respect.
SOCIAL CONSCIENCE
Social conscience is the only safeguard of all rights, fundamental or non-fundamental.
SOCIAL DEMOCRACY
Social democracy means a way of life, which recognises liberty, equality and fraternity as the principle of life.
A democratic form of Government presupposes a democratic form of society. The formal framework of democracy is of no value and would indeed be misfit if there were no social democracy. The politicians never realised that democracy was not a form of government; it was essentially a form of society. It may not be necessary for a democratic society to be marked by unity, by community of purpose, by loyalty to public ends and by mutuality of sympathy. But it does unmistakably involve two things. The first is an attitude of mind, an attitude of respect and equality towards their fellows. The second is a social organisation free from rigid social barriers.
SOCIAL EVILS
Wherever there are social evils, the health of the body politic requires that they shall be removed before they become the symbols of suffering and injustice. For it is the social and economic of revolution or decay.
SOCIAL TYRANNY
Political tyranny is nothing compared to social tyranny and a reformer, who defies society, is a much more courageous man than a politician, who defies Government.
SOCIETY
Making of the individual a sharer or partner in the associated activity so that he feels its success as his success and its failure as his failure is the real thing that binds men and makes a society of them.
The society must have either the sanction of law or the sanction of morality to hold it together. Without either, society is sure to go to pieces.
More than political or religious, man is a social animal. He may not have, need not have religion; he may not have needed not have politics. He must have society; he cannot do without society.
SLAVE
Tell the slave he is a slave and he will revolt.
To a slave, his master may be better or worse. But there cannot be a good master. A good man cannot be a master and a master cannot be a good man.
SLAVERY
Slavery does not merely mean a legalised form of subjection. It means a state of society in which some men are forced to accept from others the purposes, which control their conduct.
STRIKE
Strike is a civil wrong and not a crime, and making a man serve against his will is nothing less than making him a slave.
SURVIVAL
It is not survival but the quality, the plane of survival that is important.
There is no honour in mere survival. What matters is the plane of survival. One can survive by unconditional surrender. One can survive by beating a cowardly retreat and one can survive by fighting.
STATE SOCIALISM
State socialism should be prescribed by the law of the Constitution so that it will be beyond the reach of a Parliamentary majority to suspend, and amend or abrogate it. It is only this that one can achieve the triple object. Namely, to establish Socialism, retain Parliamentary Democracy and avoid Dictatorship.
UNCONSTITUTIONAL METHODS
When there was no way left for constitutional methods for achieving economic and social objectives, there was some justification for unconstitutional methods for achieving economic and social objectives. But where constitutional methods are open there can be no justification for these unconstitutional methods. These methods are nothing but the Grammar of Anarchy.
UNITY
If unity is to be an abiding factor, it must be founded on a sense of kinship, in the feeling of being kindred. In short, it must be spiritual.
VIRTUE IN DANGER
Where virtue is in danger, do not avoid fighting, do not be mealy mouthed.
see: http://www.ambedkar.org/
DAYANANDA AND VIVEKANANDA:a few points of difference
Dayananda gave four Vedas the highest importance. Vivekananda gave more importance to Udanishads and his teacher's (Ramkrishna's) thoughts and beliefs.
Dayananda taught and worshipped One Almighty Formless Omni-present God. Vivekananda practiced and taught worship of idol of goddess Kali and Sri Ramkrishna.
Dayananda believed that his teacher Swami Virajananda was a great extraordinary teacher of Sanskrit grammar, but he was a man, a mortal, and not God. Vivekanada believed that his teacher Ramkrishna was God himself.
Dayananda was against all sorts of anti-Vedic talks and superstition. Vivekananda made many compromises and accepted all forms of belief and worship.
Dayananda rejected incarnation theory. Vivekananda believed it and also tried to establish that his teacher was the latest and most perfect incarnation, greater than Sri Rama and Sri Krishna.
Dayananda was against British rule in India and he worked to make India free. Vivekananda contributed nothing significant in this matter.
Dayananda was pure Vedic personality. Vivekananda was total sum of so-called Hinduism.
Dayananda was believing in Vedic traitvad of eternally existing three fundamental entities: God, Soul and Matter. Vivekananda was monist (adwaitvadi of Shankaracharya's school) with a few modifications of his own. He tried to assimilate all philosophical currents, which made his philosophy very unclear.
Dayananda never visited any foreign country. Once Prox Max Muller proposed him to visit England, but he replied him that - "I wish to visit England, but still people of my country think that I am an atheist ! So let me make my countrymen realize that if I am an atheist, what sort of an atheist I am! Thereafter only, I may think to visit England." Vivekananda stayed in foreign lands for years.
Dayananda was against meat eating and shraddha of dead persons. Vivekananda believed in such things.
After taking Sannyas Dayananda never met his family and visited his birth place. This is not true in case of Vivekananda.
Dayananda was a man of fighting spirit throughout his life, up to his last breath - in words of Sri Aurobindo "an eternal worrier" and "a soldier of Light"! On other hand, if one very carefully go through Vivekananda' s letters and correspondence (patravali) he will definitely realize that frustration and disappointment is apparently seen in his last phase of life.
There are many such salient differences between these two great men. There are many similarities too.
Bhavesh Merja, Sat, 2009-03-14 06:15
http://www.aryasamaj.org/newsite/node/474
Dayananda taught and worshipped One Almighty Formless Omni-present God. Vivekananda practiced and taught worship of idol of goddess Kali and Sri Ramkrishna.
Dayananda believed that his teacher Swami Virajananda was a great extraordinary teacher of Sanskrit grammar, but he was a man, a mortal, and not God. Vivekanada believed that his teacher Ramkrishna was God himself.
Dayananda was against all sorts of anti-Vedic talks and superstition. Vivekananda made many compromises and accepted all forms of belief and worship.
Dayananda rejected incarnation theory. Vivekananda believed it and also tried to establish that his teacher was the latest and most perfect incarnation, greater than Sri Rama and Sri Krishna.
Dayananda was against British rule in India and he worked to make India free. Vivekananda contributed nothing significant in this matter.
Dayananda was pure Vedic personality. Vivekananda was total sum of so-called Hinduism.
Dayananda was believing in Vedic traitvad of eternally existing three fundamental entities: God, Soul and Matter. Vivekananda was monist (adwaitvadi of Shankaracharya's school) with a few modifications of his own. He tried to assimilate all philosophical currents, which made his philosophy very unclear.
Dayananda never visited any foreign country. Once Prox Max Muller proposed him to visit England, but he replied him that - "I wish to visit England, but still people of my country think that I am an atheist ! So let me make my countrymen realize that if I am an atheist, what sort of an atheist I am! Thereafter only, I may think to visit England." Vivekananda stayed in foreign lands for years.
Dayananda was against meat eating and shraddha of dead persons. Vivekananda believed in such things.
After taking Sannyas Dayananda never met his family and visited his birth place. This is not true in case of Vivekananda.
Dayananda was a man of fighting spirit throughout his life, up to his last breath - in words of Sri Aurobindo "an eternal worrier" and "a soldier of Light"! On other hand, if one very carefully go through Vivekananda' s letters and correspondence (patravali) he will definitely realize that frustration and disappointment is apparently seen in his last phase of life.
There are many such salient differences between these two great men. There are many similarities too.
Bhavesh Merja, Sat, 2009-03-14 06:15
http://www.aryasamaj.org/newsite/node/474
Formative Influence of Swami Vivekananda on Subhash Chandra Bose
Formative Influence of Swami Vivekananda on Subhash Chandra Bose:
A Biographical Study
BY ABNISH SINGH
Department of English, Teerthanker Mahaveer University,Moradabad, U.P., India
Subhash Chandra Bose (1897-1945), the dominant figure, of course, next to Gandhi, better known as Netaji, was born in Cuttack, Orissa, on January 23, 1897, in a well known and well to Kayastha family. He was the sixty of the fourteen children of Janakinath Bose, an eminent lawyer by profession, and Prabhavati and descended from the Boses of Mahinagar. He was brought up at Cuttack where he had his school education. Subhash was admitted into the Bapist Mission School at Cuttack in 1902, and when he was in the fourth class, he joined the Ravenshaw Collegiate School, Cuttack and remained there up to 1913. Here he learnt Bengali and got the highest marks in the subject. He was an intelligent student and his command of English was superb. He was greatly influenced by his Head-Master, Beni Madhav Das from whom he learnt social, political an economical thoughts and ideas. It was during this period that Subhash was drawn towards the works of Swami Vivekananda (1863-1902) as he accepted: "I was barely fifteen when Vivekananda entered my life, then there followed a revolution within and everything was turn upside down."1
As Subhash approached the end of his school career, the religious impulse began to grow in intensity. Due to his study, he could not devote himself fully towards spirituality. As the years rolled on, Subhash grew more and more into thoughts and education of Swami Vivekananda. Time came and he sat for the Matriculation examination in March, 1913 and got second in the whole university. His parents were delighted and he was packed off to Calcutta for further studies. Thereafter he joined the Presidency College, Calcatta. He appeared for the Intermediate examination in 1915 and was placed in the first division. Then he joined the Premiere College of the Calcutta University for his B.A. Honours in Philosophy. As taking Philosophy as his major subject, he was deeply influenced by Swami Vivekananda and by Aurobindo Ghose, the most popular leader of Bengal despite his voluntary exile and absence from politics since 1909, during his undergraduate days. In the College, he was active in students union and was a member of a group devoted mainly to social service and aiming at a synthesis between religion and nationalism, a sort of neo-Vivekananda group.
In January, 1916, Subhash organized a successful strike in the college against the misbehaviour of an English professor. He was expelled from the college. After losing academic years, he was finally permitted to study in the Scottish Church College in July 1917 and got first class in Philosophy but was placed second in order of merit in the B.A. examination in 1919. He decided to study experimental Psychology for his M.A. examination. He could not continue his studies as his father decided to send him to England to study for the Indian Civil Service. So, he set sail to England on 15th September, 1919 to study for the Civil Service. He was admitted for the course at Cambridge and passed the I.C.S. examination in Sep, 1920. But he was already an ardent nationalist and did not want to serve the British. An ardent patriotic spirit in Subhash Bose forced him ultimately to resign from the I.C.S. for the cause of the nation. Before resigning, he corresponded with his father, brother and also C.R. Das. The day, 22 April, 1921, on which he resigned from the I.C.S. was the day of destiny, a crucial turning point in his life. He hurried back to India with a view to take his place in the national struggle that was then in full swing. He reached Bombay on 16 July, 1921 and on the same afternoon had a long interview with Gandhiji at Mani Bhavan. The Mahatma received him with the characteristic hearty smile and the conversation started at once. Subhash desired to obtain a clear understanding of the details of his plans. He was not satisfied with the replies of Gandhiji. He felt that "there was a deplorable lack of clarity in the plan which the Mahatma had formulated and that he himself did not have a clear idea of the successive stages of campaign which would bring India to the cherished goal of freedom"2 Gandhiji advised him to meet Deshbandhu C.R. Das on reaching Calcutta. Subhash had already written to C.R. Das from Cambridge that he had resigned from the I.C.S. and decided to devote his whole time to political work. Subhash Bose met that man soon, had a hearty and long conversation with him and later C.R. Das became his political Guru. Subhash says:
During the course of our conversation I began to feel that here was a man who knew what he was about – who could give all that he had and who could demand from others all they could give - to whom youthfulness was not a short coming but a virtue. By the time our conversation came to an end my mind was made up. I felt that I had found a leader and I meant to follow him.3
Subhash Bose's return to Calcutta to join the freedom movement also meant a return to home and family. He had disclaimed any interest in marrying and having his own family. Here again he followed his spiritual mentor-Swami Vivekananda. He stayed with his elder brother Sarat and his family. Subhash was also very close to C.R.Das and his wife Basanti Devi who looked upon him as her own son. He did not enter politics as an unknown volunteer. He was a known figure since his college days up to his resigning from the I.C.S. So, he was given three assignments by C.R. Das. The first assignment of Bose in the Congress was the Office of the Principal of the National College, and along with it he was also made the Chief of the Publicity Congress Committee and the Head of the National Volunteer Corps. Das gave him also the responsibility of keeping contacts with the revolutionaries. Some of his fellowmen were, naturally, did not like to provide such important responsibilities to a new comer like Subhash Chandra Bose. But C.R.Das did not cared for them and expressed his firm conviction in Subhash, saying, "I can see through persons. Bose will never belie my expectations. He will be the right man to do justice to the work"4
Subhash was active in the non-co-operation activities of the Congress Party. These activities included boycotting of European goods and institutions, spinning with Charkha, writing, of the Punjab and Khilafat grievances, furthering of communal harmony between Hindus and Muslims. All these activities meant to bring Swaraj nearer. In the Hartal in Calcatta on 17 November, 1921, organized by the Congress in protest against the visit of the Prince of Wales, he proved his organizing capacity, and in the Civil Disobedience Movement started at that time he was nominated by C.R. Das as one of his successors for the leadership of the movement. This was the first taste of movement for Subhash Bose, he came out with flying colours and justified by his leadership the confidence and faith reposed on him. After the November Hartal, the government moved to suppress the non-co-operation movement. On December 20, 1921, Das and Subhash were both arrested and sentenced to six months in prison. Subhash started his first prison term side by side with C.R. Das.
The period of next few years was just like a hurricane for Bose, to say the least. He became the General Secretary of the Bengal Provincial Congress Committee and began to attend All India Congress Committee meetings in different parts of India. He was appointed Chief Executive Officer by the Mayor of Calcutta Corporation, C.R.Das in 1924. He was arrested in Oct., 1924, when he was a C.E.O. of Calcutta Corporation for his alleged involvement with the terrorists. He was put to Mandalay Jail in Barma and was kept detained there for years. During his personal experiments with politics and prison, he became bold throughout the whole period. This was the time when he was in prison in Burma, his political mentor C.R. Das passed away on June 16, 1925. After Das's death Subhash sought the guidance of Mrs. Das. He hailed her as Bengal's mother.
Subhash was released from the Burmese prison in May, 1927, and he carried out his political activities upto the beginning of 1932. Subhash was now an important leader of the Indian National Congress. He differed with the older leadership about the goal of dominion status. He stood for complete independence. During this period, he was made a member of the Motilal Nehru Committee to draw up the Swaraj Constitution. In the Calcutta Session of the Congress, in 1928, Bose, jointly with Jawaharlal Nehru, fought against the move for Dominion Status, as the goal of the Congress. Bose invited severe police assault on him when he was leading a procession of congressmen in Calcutta on October 26, 1913 against repeated government's warnings. He was the Mayor of Calcutta Corporation at that time. During Gandhiji's visit to England as the sole Congress delegate to Second Round Table Conference, Subhash resigned from the Presidency of the Bangal Congress Committee. After soma time, Subhash was again arrested on January 3, 1931. He was detained in the same Jail at Senoi in Central Provinces where his brother Sarat Chandra Bose was kept. Subhash had already suffered serious health problems during his provinces Mandalay imprisonment. Now again, tuberculosis symptoms get surfaced. Government made an offer to Subhash that he could go to Europe for treatment at his personal expenses. He sailed for Europe on February 23, 1933 from Bombay. On reaching Europe, Subhash Bose in one of his letters to his nephew Asoka Bose observed that "outside India, every Indian is India's unofficial ambassador."5 He was outside India for full three years from March, 1933 to March, 1936 and then again for two months in 1937-38. In Europe, he established centers in deferent European Capitals with a view to promote politico- cultural contacts between India and Europe.
Returning home, he found the Congress forming Government in the Provinces. He took part in it. The glorious day came in his life when he was elected as the President, fifty one in serial order, at the Haripura Congress Session in 19 February, 1938. He was re-elected the President of the Congress next year in the Tripuri Session defeating Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya, a nominee of Ghandhiji. This election was significant in the sense that it was an election of ideologies. Pattabhi represented the right wing of the Congress, whereas Subhash Bose represented the leftists who were also called extremists. Besides, he was convinced that war would break out within six months and demanded that the Congress should give an ultimatum to the British and if the ultimatum was rejected the entire country would be engaged in the struggle for Purna Swaraj. But the Congress did not adopt his suggestion and so he resigned from the Congress Presidentship and established Forward Bloc within the Congress. The Second World War broke out on 3 Sep., 1939 with Hitler invading Poland, true to the prophecy of Subhash Bose. On March 19, 1940, he convened Anti-Compromise Conference at Ramgarh under the joint auspices of Forward Bloc and Kisan Sabha which demanded a world wide struggle against the British. Bose was arrested on July 2, 1940. He was first kept in the Presidency Jail, and afterwards, in consideration of his health, he was kept in house, detention in his Elegin Road residence. From there, he left incognito to in the last week of January 1941. What he did thereafter in Europe and South-East Asia is now a recorded history.
After his escape from his residence, Subhash Bose, in his thesis entitled Forward Bloc – Its Justification, has explained the background and programme of the Forward Bloc, which is written during his sojourn in Kabul after his escape from India in January, 1941. He wrote: "when the main stream of a movement begins to stagnate, but there is still vitality in the movement as a whole – a left Wing invariably appears. The main function of the Left Wing is to stimulate progress when there is danger of its being arresyts."6
Besides, he put emphasis again and again on unity of action. Forward Bloc became the symbol of left unity for him. In the words of Bose, the Forward Block, and for that matter the Left "stands for uncompromising national struggle for the attainment of Independence, and for the post struggle period, it stands for socialist reconstruction."7
Subhash Bose reached Berlin during the first week of April, 1941. His aim was to get support from the outside for the independence of India. At that time, Germany, Italy and Japan formed a group called the Axis Powers. Among them, Germany was the most powerful nation and Hitler was the man whose help would be decisive for Bose. That was the reason; he had gone to Germany to supplement from outside the struggle going on at home. He negotiated alliance with both Germany and Japan, saying "our enemy's enemy is our friend." For proceeding his struggle at a large scale, on November 2, 1941, the Azad Hind Sangh held its first official meeting in Berlin. The eye of the needle before him was how to free his motherland from bondage. Suffice it to say that he was a dynamic personality possessing inexhaustible energy. He was also a gifted organizer, bold and blessed with the power of clear thinking. It is truly written by one of his associates that Bose "had a native power to lead, and he knew it"8. He was gifted with many colours of talents. He could take a decision in flash. He wanted that Hindus and Muslims should extend their sphere of co-operation to national politics. If better understanding would obtain between the two principal religious communities our battle for freedom would be won more decisively and more expeditiously. So, with the purpose of having a contact with the masses of India, he established ‘The Azad Hind Radio' in February 19, 1942. His regular broadcasts from Berlin aroused tremendous enthusiasms in India. In 1943, he founded Indian National Army with the ideal of liberating India by exerting pressure from outside and creating discontentment among the Indian armed personnel captivated and deserted during war.
Moreover, the works of Subhash Chandr Bose – The Indian Struggle and An Indian Pilgrim, also kindled the spirit of patriotism among the Indians. The Indian Struggle, first published in London on 17th January 1935, is the most important and comprehensive single volume of Netaji's work. The books is in two parts. The first is Netaji's narrative of the Indian struggle from 1920 to 1942. The second consists of a collection of writings, speeches and other documentary material covering the decade that ended with the Quit India Movement. In preparing this autobiography, Emilie Schenkl helped Subhas Bose. Later, Subhash married Schenkl and they had a daughter, Anita. An Indian Pilgrim is Netaji autobiography upto his Cambridge days in 1921. It also contains a collection of his letters of his boyhood, adolescence and youth ending with the one he wrote on the day he resigned from the Indian Civil Service. His works also inspired many for the betterment of India.
So was his spirit that moved the hearts and minds of Indians as well as the people of other nation as was done by Swami Vivekananda. He was tireless. He had the thought that ‘awake, arise and not stop till the goal is reached.' Following this ideology of Swamiji, he set forth to South East Asia. So, from Germany he made a perilous three month voyage in a submarine and reached Singapore on July 2, 1943. On landing in Japan, Subhash Bose was welcomed by the local government as well as by Rash Behari Bose. Two days later on 4 July he took over from Rash Behari Bose the leadership of Indian Independence Movement in East Asia and organized the Indian National Army and became its supreme commander. In his own speech Subhash Chandra Bose announced his intentions to organize Provisional Government of Free India. Bose gave the slogan-"Delhi Chalo – March to Delhi".9 The Japanese PM Tojo was invited to attend a special review of the INA. Bose renamed the I.N.A. as Azad Hind Fauj and urged for a total mobilization for a total war. He proclaimed the Provisional Government of Azad Hind on 21 October, 1943. He was hailed as Netaji by the army as well as by the Indian Civilian population in East Asia. Now there was the time for the Azad Hind Government to proclaim war against the British on the battle-field. So, battles were fought. The Andaman and Nicobar Islands were liberated in November, 1943 and renamed as ‘Shaheed and Swaraj Islands'. The Azad Hind Fauj crossed the Burma border and stood on native soil, that is India, on 18 March, 1944. How the brave army subsequently advanced up to Kohima and Imphal, how free India's banner was hoisted aloft there to the deafening cries of ‘Jai Hind' and ‘Netaji Zindabad' and how the atom bombs compelled Japan to surrender and the I.N.A., subsequently to retreat are all important events in the life of S.C.Bose as well as in history. Netaji was reportedly killed in an air-crash over Taipei. There is, however, no proof of it. Only Colonel Habibur Rahman had left an eye witness account of the crash. In August 20, 1945, the body of Netaji was taken to Taipei crematorium and was cremated. Ashes were kept in an urn in the shrine attached to the hospital. On September 5, 1945, Colonel Rahman and one Japanese Officer Colonel Saki travelled to Tokyo along with Netaji's ashes. The ashes were moved to a Buddhist temple - the Renkoji Temple. They have remained there since then. Moreover, the people of India did not believe that Subhash was actually dead. The stories about his reappearance continued to circulate. As a result of public pressure the Government of India had held two official inquiries - Shah Nawaj Committee in 1956 and the Khosla Commission in 1974, but they were in vain. The efforts of Netaji were not in vain. It was due to his efforts and sacrifice, India won freedom after some time. Truly, Netaji is immortal. He gave his life in defense of the honour and glory of his motherland and shall ever remains fully alive in the nation's heart becoming a never ending source of inspiration and courage to many a people all over the globe. And this was undoubtedly the outcome of the formative influence of Swami Vivekananda on him. .
REFERENCES:
[1] S.R.Bakshi. Subhash Chandra Bose : Founder of I.N.A. New Delhi: Anmol Publications. 1991. 2.
[2] Subhash Chandra Bose. The Indian Struggle 1920-42. Bombay: Asia Publishing House. 1964. 78.
[3] S.R.Bakshi. Subhash Chandra Bose : Founder of I.N.A. op.cit. 53.
[4] S.R.Bakshi Subhash Chandra Bose : Founder of I.N.A. op.cit. 6.
[5] Asoka Nath Bose. My Uncle Netaji, Calcutta : Esem Publications. 1977. 63.
[6] S.C.Bose. The Indian Struggle 1920 – 42. Op.cit. 395.
[7] S.C.Bose. The Indian Struggle 1920 – 4. Op.cit. 412.
[8] M. Shivram. The Road to Delhi, Tokyo: Charles Tuttle. 1967. pp. 123 – 24.
[9] Dilip Kumar Roy. The Subhash I Knew. Bombay: Nalanda Publications. 1946. 28.
Retrieved from "http://www.articlesbase.com/literature-articles/formative-influence-of-swami-vivekananda-on-subhash-chandra-bose-a-biographical-study-2157719.html"
(ArticlesBase SC #2157719) Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
A Biographical Study
BY ABNISH SINGH
Department of English, Teerthanker Mahaveer University,Moradabad, U.P., India
Subhash Chandra Bose (1897-1945), the dominant figure, of course, next to Gandhi, better known as Netaji, was born in Cuttack, Orissa, on January 23, 1897, in a well known and well to Kayastha family. He was the sixty of the fourteen children of Janakinath Bose, an eminent lawyer by profession, and Prabhavati and descended from the Boses of Mahinagar. He was brought up at Cuttack where he had his school education. Subhash was admitted into the Bapist Mission School at Cuttack in 1902, and when he was in the fourth class, he joined the Ravenshaw Collegiate School, Cuttack and remained there up to 1913. Here he learnt Bengali and got the highest marks in the subject. He was an intelligent student and his command of English was superb. He was greatly influenced by his Head-Master, Beni Madhav Das from whom he learnt social, political an economical thoughts and ideas. It was during this period that Subhash was drawn towards the works of Swami Vivekananda (1863-1902) as he accepted: "I was barely fifteen when Vivekananda entered my life, then there followed a revolution within and everything was turn upside down."1
As Subhash approached the end of his school career, the religious impulse began to grow in intensity. Due to his study, he could not devote himself fully towards spirituality. As the years rolled on, Subhash grew more and more into thoughts and education of Swami Vivekananda. Time came and he sat for the Matriculation examination in March, 1913 and got second in the whole university. His parents were delighted and he was packed off to Calcutta for further studies. Thereafter he joined the Presidency College, Calcatta. He appeared for the Intermediate examination in 1915 and was placed in the first division. Then he joined the Premiere College of the Calcutta University for his B.A. Honours in Philosophy. As taking Philosophy as his major subject, he was deeply influenced by Swami Vivekananda and by Aurobindo Ghose, the most popular leader of Bengal despite his voluntary exile and absence from politics since 1909, during his undergraduate days. In the College, he was active in students union and was a member of a group devoted mainly to social service and aiming at a synthesis between religion and nationalism, a sort of neo-Vivekananda group.
In January, 1916, Subhash organized a successful strike in the college against the misbehaviour of an English professor. He was expelled from the college. After losing academic years, he was finally permitted to study in the Scottish Church College in July 1917 and got first class in Philosophy but was placed second in order of merit in the B.A. examination in 1919. He decided to study experimental Psychology for his M.A. examination. He could not continue his studies as his father decided to send him to England to study for the Indian Civil Service. So, he set sail to England on 15th September, 1919 to study for the Civil Service. He was admitted for the course at Cambridge and passed the I.C.S. examination in Sep, 1920. But he was already an ardent nationalist and did not want to serve the British. An ardent patriotic spirit in Subhash Bose forced him ultimately to resign from the I.C.S. for the cause of the nation. Before resigning, he corresponded with his father, brother and also C.R. Das. The day, 22 April, 1921, on which he resigned from the I.C.S. was the day of destiny, a crucial turning point in his life. He hurried back to India with a view to take his place in the national struggle that was then in full swing. He reached Bombay on 16 July, 1921 and on the same afternoon had a long interview with Gandhiji at Mani Bhavan. The Mahatma received him with the characteristic hearty smile and the conversation started at once. Subhash desired to obtain a clear understanding of the details of his plans. He was not satisfied with the replies of Gandhiji. He felt that "there was a deplorable lack of clarity in the plan which the Mahatma had formulated and that he himself did not have a clear idea of the successive stages of campaign which would bring India to the cherished goal of freedom"2 Gandhiji advised him to meet Deshbandhu C.R. Das on reaching Calcutta. Subhash had already written to C.R. Das from Cambridge that he had resigned from the I.C.S. and decided to devote his whole time to political work. Subhash Bose met that man soon, had a hearty and long conversation with him and later C.R. Das became his political Guru. Subhash says:
During the course of our conversation I began to feel that here was a man who knew what he was about – who could give all that he had and who could demand from others all they could give - to whom youthfulness was not a short coming but a virtue. By the time our conversation came to an end my mind was made up. I felt that I had found a leader and I meant to follow him.3
Subhash Bose's return to Calcutta to join the freedom movement also meant a return to home and family. He had disclaimed any interest in marrying and having his own family. Here again he followed his spiritual mentor-Swami Vivekananda. He stayed with his elder brother Sarat and his family. Subhash was also very close to C.R.Das and his wife Basanti Devi who looked upon him as her own son. He did not enter politics as an unknown volunteer. He was a known figure since his college days up to his resigning from the I.C.S. So, he was given three assignments by C.R. Das. The first assignment of Bose in the Congress was the Office of the Principal of the National College, and along with it he was also made the Chief of the Publicity Congress Committee and the Head of the National Volunteer Corps. Das gave him also the responsibility of keeping contacts with the revolutionaries. Some of his fellowmen were, naturally, did not like to provide such important responsibilities to a new comer like Subhash Chandra Bose. But C.R.Das did not cared for them and expressed his firm conviction in Subhash, saying, "I can see through persons. Bose will never belie my expectations. He will be the right man to do justice to the work"4
Subhash was active in the non-co-operation activities of the Congress Party. These activities included boycotting of European goods and institutions, spinning with Charkha, writing, of the Punjab and Khilafat grievances, furthering of communal harmony between Hindus and Muslims. All these activities meant to bring Swaraj nearer. In the Hartal in Calcatta on 17 November, 1921, organized by the Congress in protest against the visit of the Prince of Wales, he proved his organizing capacity, and in the Civil Disobedience Movement started at that time he was nominated by C.R. Das as one of his successors for the leadership of the movement. This was the first taste of movement for Subhash Bose, he came out with flying colours and justified by his leadership the confidence and faith reposed on him. After the November Hartal, the government moved to suppress the non-co-operation movement. On December 20, 1921, Das and Subhash were both arrested and sentenced to six months in prison. Subhash started his first prison term side by side with C.R. Das.
The period of next few years was just like a hurricane for Bose, to say the least. He became the General Secretary of the Bengal Provincial Congress Committee and began to attend All India Congress Committee meetings in different parts of India. He was appointed Chief Executive Officer by the Mayor of Calcutta Corporation, C.R.Das in 1924. He was arrested in Oct., 1924, when he was a C.E.O. of Calcutta Corporation for his alleged involvement with the terrorists. He was put to Mandalay Jail in Barma and was kept detained there for years. During his personal experiments with politics and prison, he became bold throughout the whole period. This was the time when he was in prison in Burma, his political mentor C.R. Das passed away on June 16, 1925. After Das's death Subhash sought the guidance of Mrs. Das. He hailed her as Bengal's mother.
Subhash was released from the Burmese prison in May, 1927, and he carried out his political activities upto the beginning of 1932. Subhash was now an important leader of the Indian National Congress. He differed with the older leadership about the goal of dominion status. He stood for complete independence. During this period, he was made a member of the Motilal Nehru Committee to draw up the Swaraj Constitution. In the Calcutta Session of the Congress, in 1928, Bose, jointly with Jawaharlal Nehru, fought against the move for Dominion Status, as the goal of the Congress. Bose invited severe police assault on him when he was leading a procession of congressmen in Calcutta on October 26, 1913 against repeated government's warnings. He was the Mayor of Calcutta Corporation at that time. During Gandhiji's visit to England as the sole Congress delegate to Second Round Table Conference, Subhash resigned from the Presidency of the Bangal Congress Committee. After soma time, Subhash was again arrested on January 3, 1931. He was detained in the same Jail at Senoi in Central Provinces where his brother Sarat Chandra Bose was kept. Subhash had already suffered serious health problems during his provinces Mandalay imprisonment. Now again, tuberculosis symptoms get surfaced. Government made an offer to Subhash that he could go to Europe for treatment at his personal expenses. He sailed for Europe on February 23, 1933 from Bombay. On reaching Europe, Subhash Bose in one of his letters to his nephew Asoka Bose observed that "outside India, every Indian is India's unofficial ambassador."5 He was outside India for full three years from March, 1933 to March, 1936 and then again for two months in 1937-38. In Europe, he established centers in deferent European Capitals with a view to promote politico- cultural contacts between India and Europe.
Returning home, he found the Congress forming Government in the Provinces. He took part in it. The glorious day came in his life when he was elected as the President, fifty one in serial order, at the Haripura Congress Session in 19 February, 1938. He was re-elected the President of the Congress next year in the Tripuri Session defeating Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya, a nominee of Ghandhiji. This election was significant in the sense that it was an election of ideologies. Pattabhi represented the right wing of the Congress, whereas Subhash Bose represented the leftists who were also called extremists. Besides, he was convinced that war would break out within six months and demanded that the Congress should give an ultimatum to the British and if the ultimatum was rejected the entire country would be engaged in the struggle for Purna Swaraj. But the Congress did not adopt his suggestion and so he resigned from the Congress Presidentship and established Forward Bloc within the Congress. The Second World War broke out on 3 Sep., 1939 with Hitler invading Poland, true to the prophecy of Subhash Bose. On March 19, 1940, he convened Anti-Compromise Conference at Ramgarh under the joint auspices of Forward Bloc and Kisan Sabha which demanded a world wide struggle against the British. Bose was arrested on July 2, 1940. He was first kept in the Presidency Jail, and afterwards, in consideration of his health, he was kept in house, detention in his Elegin Road residence. From there, he left incognito to in the last week of January 1941. What he did thereafter in Europe and South-East Asia is now a recorded history.
After his escape from his residence, Subhash Bose, in his thesis entitled Forward Bloc – Its Justification, has explained the background and programme of the Forward Bloc, which is written during his sojourn in Kabul after his escape from India in January, 1941. He wrote: "when the main stream of a movement begins to stagnate, but there is still vitality in the movement as a whole – a left Wing invariably appears. The main function of the Left Wing is to stimulate progress when there is danger of its being arresyts."6
Besides, he put emphasis again and again on unity of action. Forward Bloc became the symbol of left unity for him. In the words of Bose, the Forward Block, and for that matter the Left "stands for uncompromising national struggle for the attainment of Independence, and for the post struggle period, it stands for socialist reconstruction."7
Subhash Bose reached Berlin during the first week of April, 1941. His aim was to get support from the outside for the independence of India. At that time, Germany, Italy and Japan formed a group called the Axis Powers. Among them, Germany was the most powerful nation and Hitler was the man whose help would be decisive for Bose. That was the reason; he had gone to Germany to supplement from outside the struggle going on at home. He negotiated alliance with both Germany and Japan, saying "our enemy's enemy is our friend." For proceeding his struggle at a large scale, on November 2, 1941, the Azad Hind Sangh held its first official meeting in Berlin. The eye of the needle before him was how to free his motherland from bondage. Suffice it to say that he was a dynamic personality possessing inexhaustible energy. He was also a gifted organizer, bold and blessed with the power of clear thinking. It is truly written by one of his associates that Bose "had a native power to lead, and he knew it"8. He was gifted with many colours of talents. He could take a decision in flash. He wanted that Hindus and Muslims should extend their sphere of co-operation to national politics. If better understanding would obtain between the two principal religious communities our battle for freedom would be won more decisively and more expeditiously. So, with the purpose of having a contact with the masses of India, he established ‘The Azad Hind Radio' in February 19, 1942. His regular broadcasts from Berlin aroused tremendous enthusiasms in India. In 1943, he founded Indian National Army with the ideal of liberating India by exerting pressure from outside and creating discontentment among the Indian armed personnel captivated and deserted during war.
Moreover, the works of Subhash Chandr Bose – The Indian Struggle and An Indian Pilgrim, also kindled the spirit of patriotism among the Indians. The Indian Struggle, first published in London on 17th January 1935, is the most important and comprehensive single volume of Netaji's work. The books is in two parts. The first is Netaji's narrative of the Indian struggle from 1920 to 1942. The second consists of a collection of writings, speeches and other documentary material covering the decade that ended with the Quit India Movement. In preparing this autobiography, Emilie Schenkl helped Subhas Bose. Later, Subhash married Schenkl and they had a daughter, Anita. An Indian Pilgrim is Netaji autobiography upto his Cambridge days in 1921. It also contains a collection of his letters of his boyhood, adolescence and youth ending with the one he wrote on the day he resigned from the Indian Civil Service. His works also inspired many for the betterment of India.
So was his spirit that moved the hearts and minds of Indians as well as the people of other nation as was done by Swami Vivekananda. He was tireless. He had the thought that ‘awake, arise and not stop till the goal is reached.' Following this ideology of Swamiji, he set forth to South East Asia. So, from Germany he made a perilous three month voyage in a submarine and reached Singapore on July 2, 1943. On landing in Japan, Subhash Bose was welcomed by the local government as well as by Rash Behari Bose. Two days later on 4 July he took over from Rash Behari Bose the leadership of Indian Independence Movement in East Asia and organized the Indian National Army and became its supreme commander. In his own speech Subhash Chandra Bose announced his intentions to organize Provisional Government of Free India. Bose gave the slogan-"Delhi Chalo – March to Delhi".9 The Japanese PM Tojo was invited to attend a special review of the INA. Bose renamed the I.N.A. as Azad Hind Fauj and urged for a total mobilization for a total war. He proclaimed the Provisional Government of Azad Hind on 21 October, 1943. He was hailed as Netaji by the army as well as by the Indian Civilian population in East Asia. Now there was the time for the Azad Hind Government to proclaim war against the British on the battle-field. So, battles were fought. The Andaman and Nicobar Islands were liberated in November, 1943 and renamed as ‘Shaheed and Swaraj Islands'. The Azad Hind Fauj crossed the Burma border and stood on native soil, that is India, on 18 March, 1944. How the brave army subsequently advanced up to Kohima and Imphal, how free India's banner was hoisted aloft there to the deafening cries of ‘Jai Hind' and ‘Netaji Zindabad' and how the atom bombs compelled Japan to surrender and the I.N.A., subsequently to retreat are all important events in the life of S.C.Bose as well as in history. Netaji was reportedly killed in an air-crash over Taipei. There is, however, no proof of it. Only Colonel Habibur Rahman had left an eye witness account of the crash. In August 20, 1945, the body of Netaji was taken to Taipei crematorium and was cremated. Ashes were kept in an urn in the shrine attached to the hospital. On September 5, 1945, Colonel Rahman and one Japanese Officer Colonel Saki travelled to Tokyo along with Netaji's ashes. The ashes were moved to a Buddhist temple - the Renkoji Temple. They have remained there since then. Moreover, the people of India did not believe that Subhash was actually dead. The stories about his reappearance continued to circulate. As a result of public pressure the Government of India had held two official inquiries - Shah Nawaj Committee in 1956 and the Khosla Commission in 1974, but they were in vain. The efforts of Netaji were not in vain. It was due to his efforts and sacrifice, India won freedom after some time. Truly, Netaji is immortal. He gave his life in defense of the honour and glory of his motherland and shall ever remains fully alive in the nation's heart becoming a never ending source of inspiration and courage to many a people all over the globe. And this was undoubtedly the outcome of the formative influence of Swami Vivekananda on him. .
REFERENCES:
[1] S.R.Bakshi. Subhash Chandra Bose : Founder of I.N.A. New Delhi: Anmol Publications. 1991. 2.
[2] Subhash Chandra Bose. The Indian Struggle 1920-42. Bombay: Asia Publishing House. 1964. 78.
[3] S.R.Bakshi. Subhash Chandra Bose : Founder of I.N.A. op.cit. 53.
[4] S.R.Bakshi Subhash Chandra Bose : Founder of I.N.A. op.cit. 6.
[5] Asoka Nath Bose. My Uncle Netaji, Calcutta : Esem Publications. 1977. 63.
[6] S.C.Bose. The Indian Struggle 1920 – 42. Op.cit. 395.
[7] S.C.Bose. The Indian Struggle 1920 – 4. Op.cit. 412.
[8] M. Shivram. The Road to Delhi, Tokyo: Charles Tuttle. 1967. pp. 123 – 24.
[9] Dilip Kumar Roy. The Subhash I Knew. Bombay: Nalanda Publications. 1946. 28.
Retrieved from "http://www.articlesbase.com/literature-articles/formative-influence-of-swami-vivekananda-on-subhash-chandra-bose-a-biographical-study-2157719.html"
(ArticlesBase SC #2157719) Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
