Founder ESTABLISHED : APRIL 1937 M.N. ROY (Formerly in the ... · ESTABLISHED : APRIL 1937 (Formerly in the name of ‘INDEPENDENT INDIA’ since April 1937 to March 1949) Founder

545

ESTABLISHED : APRIL 1937(Formerly in the name of ‘INDEPENDENT INDIA’ since April 1937 to March 1949)

Founder

M.N. ROY

AUGUST 2015Vol. 79 No. 5 Rs. 15 / MONTH

Time to take a PledgeMahi Pal Singh

Resentful KashmirisKuldip Nayar

Like Everyone Else, Muslims Too Want a Proper EducationArfa Khanum Sherwani

Retributive Justice is Injustice, Your LordshipsAvinash Pandey

When M.N. Roy (middle) arrived at Bombay in 1930 from Europe, V.B. Karnik (left) and Mani Ben Kara (1905-1979) (right), both devoted Radical Humanists, were the two prominent labour leaders who received him and put in a secret place to avoid arrest from British police, as Roy was accused No.1 in famous Kanpur Communist Conspiracy case - charged with smuggling communist literature and promoting formation of communist groups in different parts of India. This photo is of that time in 1930.

CONTENTS:

Founder Editor:M.N.Roy

Advisors:Dr. R.M. PalDr. Narisetti Innaiah

Editor:Mahi Pal Singh

Editorial Board:Ramesh Awasthi, Dr. Deepavali Sen,Vidya Bhushan Rawat, Qurban Ali,N.D. Pancholi (Ex-officio Member)

Publisher and Printer:N.D. Pancholi

Send articles and reports to:Mahi Pal Singh at G-3/617, Shalimar GardenExtension I, Rose Park, Sahibabad,Ghaziabad-201005. (U.P.) Ph. 09312206414

or E-mail them to:[email protected] [email protected]

Please send Subscription/DonationCheques in favour of

THE RADICAL HUMANIST to:N.D. Pancholi, G-3/617, Shalimar Garden Extn. IRose Park, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad-201005 (U.P.)Ph. 0120-2648691, (M) 9811099532E-mail : [email protected]

Please Note : corroborating the facts that they give in their write-ups. Neither IRI/the Publisher nor the Editor of this journal will be responsible for testing the validity and authenticity of statements & information cited by the authors. Also, sometimes some articles published in this journal may carry opinions not similar to the Radical Humanist philosophy; but they would be entertained here if the need is felt to debate and discuss them.

Authors will bear sole accountability for

Vol.79 No. 5 AUGUST 2015

Monthly Journal of the Indian Renaissance Institute

Devoted to the development of the RenaissanceMovement and for promotion of human rights,scien tific temper, rational think ing and ahumanist view of life.

Page No.

Editorial:Time to take a Pledge 3– Mahi Pal Singh

Articles and Features:Resentful Kashmiris 7– Kuldip Nayar

Like Everyone Else, Muslims Too Want a 9Proper Education– Arfa Khanum Sherwani

Retributive Justice is injustice, Your Lordships 11– Avinash Pandey

The unenlightened/enlightening debate on 13Yakub Memon's Death Sentence– Prabhakar Sinha

Tribute to former President: APJ Abdul Kalam 14

Ambedkar's Vision of Secular, Socialist India 16– Vidya Bhushan Rawat

Lohia's Socialism - Revisited 19– Bapu Heddurshetti

A Case for Beyond Faith 22– Tarun Patnaik

From the Writings of M.N. Roy:A Politics for Our Time 24– M.N. Roy

Kakori Train Robbery Case of 38Freedom Struggle– Gopal Rathi

Human Rights Section:A Basic Right is in Danger 40 – Chinmayi Arun

– N.D. Pancholi

A Veteran Labour Leader and Committed 36Radical Humanist– N. Innaiah

THE RADICAL HUMANIST 3

Editorial:

Time to take a PledgeMahi Pal Singh

This 15th of August 2015 the country celebratesthe 69th Independence Day from the British Raj.It is once again time to remember and expressour gratitude to the innumerable freedom fighterswho struggled and also laid down their lives sothat their future generations could breathe andlive with dignity in a free and independentcountry. They dreamt that we would live not onlyin a politically independent country but also ina country in which we would enjoy economicwell being, social cohesion and equality of statusand opportunities. Ultimately, after attainingindependence on 15th August 1947, thesedreams of theirs were enshrined in the country'sConstitution when it was declared a SOCIALISTSECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC andwherein a promise was made to secure to all itscitizens:

JUSTICE, social, economic and political;

LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faithand worship;

EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and topromote among them all

FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of theindividual and the unity and integrity of theNation.

After 68 years of independence, it is also timefor stock taking and to sit and assess whetherthese promises have been fulfilled. Visionariesand freedom fighters like M.N. Roy had alsopresented an economic and political modelthrough which the dreams of the people of Indiacould be fulfilled. After all it was not merely forpolitical independence that our ancestors laiddown their lives.

An objective assessment shows that India hasmade tremendous progress in the field of nuclearscience, rocket technology, communication,medical science etc. But the question is whetherthey have made the lives of the masses anybetter. Inequalities of all kinds still persist in oursociety: social inequalities in the form of castesystem; economic inequalities in the form of stillgrowing disparity in the income level of the pooron the one side and the well-to-do and the richclass on the other; political inequality as only ahandful of politicians have usurped the solecontrol and authority to rule the country bymaking political parties their sole property, caste-based or family-based, through crores and croresof unaccounted and ill-got money and bydividing people on caste and religious bases. Onall occasions, political and social, the politiciansand the other rich make a vulgar show of theirwealth whereas farmers continue to commitsuicides in increasing numbers; electricity hasstill not reached all the villages and drinkingwater has not reached all even in the urban areas,not to speak of the rural areas. Even in the capitalof the country, there are areas where drinkingwater does not reach and people have to fight itout to get a bucket of water if and when a watertank arrives there. In spite of the 'Free andCompulsory Education to all children up to theage of 14 Act' having been passed by parliament,young children can be seen in big numbersbegging at the road crossings even in big citieslike Delhi; health care facilities are still out ofthe reach of the majority of our population;unemployment has increased. The only peoplewho have made tremendous progress are theAmbanis, the Adanies, the politicians, thebureaucrats and the like. They have grown

AUGUST 20154

thousands of times in their wealth and status andmost of the money they have amassed is throughcorrupt means bending the whole system to caterto their needs. They look with contempt towardsthe masses, calling them 'cattle class', exceptwhen they need them.

Corruption has reached gigantic proportions. Itis very difficult to locate an honest policeman,and almost impossible to locate an honestpolitician. During the 10 year rule of theCongress led United Progressive Alliance (UPA)government there were corruption scams worthlakhs of crores of Rupees in which centralministers, even the Prime Minister's office, weredirectly involved. Within a short period of lessthan a year and a half, the governments led bythe Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in the states andat the centre have equaled the record of the UPA.Leave aside the charges of showing unduefavours to Lalit Modi, an absconderbusinessman, in return for the undue financialbenefits they and/or their family members hadreceived from him in a mutually beneficial move,against the central minister Sushma Swaraj andthe Rajasthan Chief Minister Vasundhra Raje,over which the whole business of the nationalParliament remains stalled during the monsoonsession, the VYAPAM scam, an admission andrecruitment scam involving politicians, seniorofficials and businessmen, of the MadhyaPradesh government involving thousands ofcrores of Rupees, has become the biggest scamof independent India by the sheer number ofcandidates affected, which is around 20,000 andthe number of people, around 48, who eitherknew the details of the scam and could disclosethem or journalists who were trying toinvestigate and find out the people involved inthe scam, murdered or killed after the details ofthe scam started surfacing, obviously to shieldthe politicians and bureaucrats who havemasterminded the whole scam. The position of

those involved can be judged from the fact thatthe Chief Minister of the state, Shivraj Chouhanand members of his family, the Governor of theState and his son, who has since died, and verysenior bureaucrats are allegedly involved in thescam. The Governor's residence, the Raj Bhavan,is also alleged to have been used for the bribemoney to change hands. Looking at theseriousness and dimension of the scam, theSupreme Court of India handed over theinvestigation into the scam to the Central Bureauof Investigation (CBI) and a team of 40investigating officers started looking into thematter. The scam is so big that the CBI requestedthe Supreme Court to provide it with a team of200 investigating officers because the team of 40people was not sufficient to investigate into thematter. And Narendra Modi, the Prime Minister,who had promised to the nation during hiselection speeches 'Na Khaoonga Na KhaneDoonga', meaning thereby 'I shall not indulge incorruption, nor let anybody else indulge in it,' isjust watching and conspicuously maintaining aperfect silence, reminding everyone of thesilence Manmohan Singh, the UPA PrimeMinister, maintained watching his ministersindulge in gigantic corruption. Not only this,under a well thought out plan the freedom ofeducational institutions, and even the FilmTelevision Institute and the Film Censor Board,are being destroyed in a systematic way andpeople with no other qualifications but loyaltyto the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), theparent body of the BJP whose Hindutva ideologythe latter follows, are being appointed theirheads.

The plight of farmers is already very bad. Stillthe Narendra Modi government is so much bentupon acquiring their farm lands, not for theirbenefits in any way, nor for purely publicpurposes, but to hand it over to privatebusinessmen in the name of Private Public


Partnership (PPP) for them to make big moneyat the cost of depriving the farmers of their onlysource of living, that it has issued ordinancesthrice in spite of the fact that the parliament hasnot passed the land acquisition bill presented toit by the NDA government which has failed toget it passed in spite of its absolute majority inthe lower house of parliament, the Lok Sabhaand overall majority in both the houses takentogether. Its adamancy to implement the lawwithout the approval of parliament only showshow it disregards the public opinion expressedthrough its elected representatives.

Whatever civil liberties and rights people enjoyunder the Constitution and other Acts ofParliament are being snatched away throughgovernment notifications. Activists who protestagainst the anti-people policies of thegovernment are being dubbed as anti-nationalsand traitors and killed or hounded and fixed infalse cases against them. Right to Information(RTI) activists who seek vital information onillegal mining, corruption in defence and otherestablishments and various ministries are eitherkilled by the land and mining mafia and thosewho fear exposure, or do not get the informationthey seek. A recent note approved by the centralcabinet proposes to amend the Whistleblowers'Protection Act so that it would dis-empower thepeople and snatch away whatever empowermentthey had got through the RTI Act passed by theUPA government in 2005 to seek informationregarding how their money was spent by variousdepartments of the government and how thegovernment and its agencies were functioning.It is noteworthy to remember that thousands ofcases of misuse and misappropriation of fundsand illegalities committed by ministers andbureaucrats have been unearthed through RTIapplications filed by ordinary people and RTIactivists in the last ten years of the Act's passage.The cabinet note proposes that people cannot

have the absolute right to blow a whistle andmake a complaint if they see something wrong.It also recommends restrictions like exemptionsfrom disclosure under the RTI Act. The activistsfeel that once these amendments are passed, thebill may not leave anything to complain about.

In another case, "On one hand, the DNAProfiling Bill, which may result in a database ofsensitive personal data with little to prevent itsmisuse, is being tabled in Parliament. On theother hand, the Attorney General took a shockingposition in the Supreme Court of disputing thevery existence of the right to privacy in theAadhar case," says Chinmayi Arun. Thegovernment's argument was that the right toprivacy cannot be held as a fundamental right ofthe people, which effectively means that thisright is also going to be snatched away from thepeople. What is even more shocking is that theNDA government had opposed vehemently thescheme of the Aadhar cards when it wasintroduced by the UPA government on the verycounts on which it is strongly supporting andcontinuing the scheme now, this in spite of theSupreme Court orders that these cards cannot bemade mandatory for any service provided by thegovernment. It seems that this government hasno respect for the institution of the judiciary alsoin the same manner as it does not value the corevalues like freedom of speech and expressionand secularism as promised by the IndianConstitution.

Today, Christians and the Churches are beingattacked. Muslims are being mocked at, attackedand killed and their houses burnt, as happenedin Muzaffar Nagar in U.P. Even M.P.s belongingto the ruling BJP openly threaten Muslims andsome of them even advise them to go to Pakistan.The divisive agenda of the Hindutva brigade isbeing aggressively implemented with the aim ofensuring the support of the majority Hindus inelections. Does this country belong only to the

AUGUST 20156

RSS and its Hindutva outfits? By insulting asingle Muslim, do they not insult thousands offreedom-fighters and martyrs including Muslimslike Ashfaq-ulla Khan who laid down their livesfighting for the freedom of this country? Are theynot mocking at the sacrifices of those brave andselfless soldiers, like Abdul Hamid, who diedand are still dying fighting Pakistani infiltratorsand attackers and still keep a 24 hour vigil alongthe line of control to save the unity and integrityof our country? Does this country belong anyless to those who chose this secular country astheir own in which to live and die, and not thereligion based Muslim country Pakistan whenthey were offered a choice at the time ofpartition? Or does it belong only and only to theself-styled nationalists and patriots who are outto destroy the 'Ganga-Jamuni' culture of thiscountry in which have lived people belonging tovarious religions and other diversities with loveand respect for each other for thousands ofyears? Shall we not forfeit our claim to be asecular nation if minorities do not feel safe tolive a life of dignity here? If there are anti-

nationalists and traitors in this country it is theywho are destroying the unified social fabric ofthis country and it is they who are a threat to theunity and integrity of this country. Unfortunately,they are the very people who are the powers thatbe and have arrogated to themselves the right totag others as 'anti-nationals' and 'traitors'.

Every citizen of this country is duty bound towork for the constitutional and democraticvalues this nation has fostered and preservedagainst all odds. People of this country havelearnt to raise their voice against injustice. Theyhave also learnt to protest when their rights arein danger. They cannot be silenced now as theywere silenced during the Emergency regime forfear of losing their liberty and even their lives.There may be threats, incarceration or evendeath. But that is the price we have to pay toprotect our democracy and long held secular anddemocratic values and rights. By doing so weshall be paying a real tribute to our nationalheroes who died so that we may live in peaceand with dignity, with our heads held high as freeindividuals of a free nation.

THE RADICAL HUMANIST SUBSCRIPTION RATESIn SAARC Countries:

For one year - Rs. 200.00 For two years - Rs. 350.00For three years - 500.00 Life subscription - Rs. 2000.00

(Life subscription is only for individual subscribers and not for institutions.)

Cheques should be in favour of The Radical Humanist. For outstation cheques: Please add

Rs. 55.00 to the total. In other Countries: Annual subscription (Air Mail) $ 100.00; GBP 75.00Note: Direct transfer of subscription amount from abroad may be sent to:

The name of the account : "THE RADICAL HUMANIST"Name of the Bank : Canara Bank, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi-110014 (India)

A/C (Current) No: 0349201821034 IFSC Code : CNRB0000349SWIFT CODE Number: CNRBINBBMHB (For Abroad)

Cheques and money transfer details may be sent to: Mr. N.D. PancholiG-3/617, Shalimar Garden Extn. I, Rose Park, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad- 201005. (U.P.)


KASHMIR has changed beyond recognition. Inless than five years when I visited Srinagar last,the valley has become visibly anti-India. Thisdoes not mean that it has become pro-Pakistan,although some green flags fly in the interiors ofSrinagar. What it really means is that thealienation, which was perceptible even earlier,has changed into resentment.

However, the sunny sides like the Dal Lake andits bundh (bank) are as normal as they used tobe. Tourists drive straight from the airport to thesites and are oblivious to the fact that the interioris the scene of militants who still lob grenades.I was in Srinagar when violence took place andsome grenades were thrown in the interior of thetown.

An invitation by an organisation of Kashmirijournalists took me to Srinagar. A few otherjournalists from Delhi were also among theinvitees. Strikingly, no journalist from Jammuwas present. Of course, none had been invited.

The Kashmiris' protest, more or less peaceful, isIslamic in tone and tenor. But it seems as if it isa way of expression, not the content. The contentis that the Kashmiris want a country of their own.Most people in India suspect that an independentKashmir is only a bogey. The real intension ofthe Kashmiris is to join Pakistan.

But I do not agree with this inference. The veryidea of independence looks more like a dreamand it has swept the Kashmiris off their feet. Ifit ever becomes a reality, which is impossible,even the staunch supporters of integration withPakistan will jettison their agenda and join theranks of independence seekers.

The sequence of events reminds me of QuaideAzam Mohammad Ali Jinnah's way of thinking.

Resentful KashmirisKuldip Nayar

He raised the demand for Pakistan as abargaining counter to get the maximumconcessions for Muslims in a country where theHindus were bound to be in a preponderantmajority. However, when he found a resoundingresponse among the Muslims he came to own thedemand for Pakistan, a homeland for theMuslims. Shaky in his belief in the beginning,he came to be its sole spokesman.

Therefore, there should be no doubt about thereal desire of Kashmiris. I could see angry faceswhen I said in my speech that the Muslims inIndia would have a hard time if the demand foran independent Kashmir was ever acceded. TheHindus would argue that if even after 70 yearsof being part of India the Kashmiri Muslimswanted independence, what is the guaranteeabout the loyalty of some 16 crore Muslims inIndia?

The argument that India could not jeopardize itssecular system by making Kashmir a separatecountry, which would be 98 per cent Muslims,was not even entertained at the conference."Your Muslims are your problem", was more orless the counter argument.

I recall a similar reaction when after theformation of Pakistan I told its Foreign MinisterAbdul Sattar that the Muslims in India-they weremore than those at that time in Pakistan-werepaying the price for the creation of Pakistan. Hesaid that they had to make 'sacrifices' for aMuslim country, Pakistan, to take shape.

What has disappointed me the most was thedisappearance of grey area in Kashmir, whichwas visible till a couple of years ago. The stanceshave hardened so much so that even socialcontacts between Muslims and Hindus have gotsnapped. I am sorry to bring in personal

AUGUST 20158

"Where a society has chosen to accept democracy as its credal faith, it is elementary thatthe citizens ought to know what their government is doing." Justice P N Bhagwati, formerChief Justice, Supreme Court of India, (1981)

"Information is the currency that every citizen requires to participate in the life andgovernance of society." Justice A. P. Shah, former Chief Justice, Delhi and Madras HighCourts, (2010)

example. In the past, Yasin Malik would inviteme to his house for dinner and conduct me tohis house through the labyrinth of lanes.

True, he has turned what is called a 'separatist'.But I vainly waited for a word from him. I donot believe that he did not know about mypresence in Srinagar. The Jammu and KashmirLiberation Front he heads has posted his men atthe airport to know who comes from India andwhen. Yasin Malik gets the "separatists'"feedback.

I had Yasin's fast unto death broken on thecondition that I would personally conduct aprobe into human rights violations by the Indiansecurity forces. He agreed to my supervisioninstead of the Amnesty International probe. Weproduced a report and found Yasin's allegationsmostly correct. The report was quoted widely byPakistan to the embarrassment of Indiangovernment.

True, Yasin says that he is not an Indian. But ourrelationship was not on the basis of nationality.Can bitterness snap even personal bonds? ShouldI presume that I wrongly assumed certain thingsand that personal relations have no meaning inthe face of political exigencies did only Kashmirbehind us.

To cite another example of how personalrelationships are pushed into the background forpolitical purposes, another Kashmiri leaderShabir Shah is a changed person today. He waslike my chela (disciple). He was then pro-India.He has changed into a staunch opponent. Yet, I

do not know why personal relations should die.Is it the price that I have to pay for a change inShabir's ideas?

Kashmir, no doubt, requires attention, especiallyfor those who believe in a secular anddemocratic India. No amount of oppositionshould swerve them from their commitment. Ifthey change, it means that their earlier stance wasonly a façade.

This holds good for the entire India. We are inthe midst of challenges to the very idea,propounded by Mahatma Gandhi and JawaharlalNehru, who won us freedom. It pains me to seethat some voices have begun to appreciate theideas of Naturam Godse, who killed theMahatma. Were India to question its ethos, theMuslim-dominated Kashmir would feel insecure.A Kashmiri Muslim engineer, who dropped meat the airport, told how he was suspect even at aliberal place like Bangalore and harassed by thepolice.

Parties have reduced politics to the identificationon the basis of caste and religion. People shouldassert themselves through liberal organizationsor leaders and ensure that the poison of religionand caste does not spread. If the nation fails,Kashmir and many other parts of India mayflounder in the muddy waters of religion. Thecountry is on trial.

(Kuldip Nayar is a veteran syndicated columnistcatering to around 80 newspapers and journalsin 14 languages in India & [email protected])


The Maharashtra government's decision to'derecognise' madarsas as schools if they do notteach primary subjects such as science, socialscience and mathematics has generated a lot ofcriticism from opposition parties as well as aconsiderable section of the Muslim community.

The government says its only aim is to bringmadarsa students into the mainstream and thatthe latest move should not be considered 'anti-Muslim'. For a variety of reasons, however, itsexplanation has not satisfied critics.

As per the Sachar Committee report, only 4% ofMuslim students across India go to madarsas.The number is slightly higher in the states ofUttar Pradesh and Bihar, while in Maharashtra,the figure is less This effectively means thatgiven a chance, an overwhelming majority ofMuslims would want to send their kids to normalschools.

But the Sachar report also says that 60% ofurban Muslim kids do not attend any school -government, private or even a madarsa. InMaharashtra, according to the Mahmood-ur-Rahman committee report, only 19% of urbanMuslim girls and 10.9% of rural ones areenrolled in post-primary schools. There is noconvincing explanation for why the governmentshould care only about the 4% and not the 60%of adolescent boys and more than 80% ofadolescent girls who have been excluded fromproper schooling of any kind.

It is important to note that the Sachar committeein its recommendations had advised the thenUPA government against any madarsamodernisation initiatives. On the contrary, it hadasked the government to open a school close to

Like Everyone Else, Muslims Too Want aProper Education

Arfa Khanum Sherwani

a madarsa and let people choose what type ofeducation they wanted for their kids. But thegovernment did not pay heed to the advice andwent ahead with its plans of 'modernisation' byallotting funds in subsequent budgets. The Modigovernment has continued with this 'tradition',allotting Rs 100 crore in its first budget. In fact,on a similar pattern, the previous NDAGovernment (1999-2004) had tried out aprogram named 'Area Intensive MadrasaModernisation Programmme' (AIMMP) but didnot succeed due to stiff resistance from variousMuslim leaders and clerics.

The terrorist attack on the World Trade Centrein 2001 turned the spotlight on madarsas becauseof the link between 9/11, Al Qaeda and theTaliban. Indian madarsas too were looked at withsuspicion since they were perceived to haveallegiance to the 'Wahabi' ideology which theTaliban claim to be pursuing. While Wahabiinfluence exists and may even be growing,Indian madarsas have never believed in itsmilitary manifestations. Even today, politicalIslam remains an unknown phenomenon inIndia.

In order to neutralise the post-9/11threatperception, voices from outside and within theMuslim community advocating reforms in themadrasa educational system became louder. But'modernisation' initiatives were taken without anyserious attempt to understand the structure,administration and future of these institutions.

If we take a closer look, the government'sattempts to make religious education 'secular' donot go beyond tokenism. Let's take the exampleof UP where government recognised madarsas

AUGUST 201510

are given Rs. 1 lakh every year for each subjectthat is taught. But there is little support forphysical infrastructure, and teacher pay is lowerthan in government schools. The government'sinvolvement in the teacher selection process hasalso led to the appointment of undereducatedcandidates. All of this is proof of the state's lackof seriousness towards 'modernising' madarsas.

We also often do not realise that Indian madarsasare not monolithic. Education is a state subjectand the state government decides the educationpolicy of its state. Therefore, a madarsa in WestBengal will work in an entirely different waythan one in Kerala. West Bengal madarsas havemany non-Muslim students - in some cases asmany as 40% of their pupils - and enjoy thereputation of imparting better quality educationthan even government schools. In Kerala, on theother hand, students attend madarsas for a fewhours before or after attending regular school. Inboth these states, madarsas work under a StateMadarsa Board whereas Maharashtra does nothave such a board at all.

In Maharashtra, most of the state's 1,900madarsas are registered with state Waqf board.In 2013, the state-government appointedMehmood-ur-Rehman committee said only 2.3per cent Muslim children are attending madrasasin the state. The committee had advised thegovernment to take steps to elevate students fromtraditionalism.

Visible distrust

There is visible distrust between the governmentand madarsas about each other. While thegovernment is usually suspicious about thefunctioning of madrasas and wants to keep aclose tab on what happens inside, the maulvisand clerics want to resist any governmentinterference - academic or administrative. Mostof the unregistered madrasas run on zakat moneygiven by Muslims. Either for fear of government

interference or to avoid the audit of unaccountedmoney, these madrasas try to maintain a lowprofile and do not actively work to getthemselves registered.

Some argue that by bringing the madarsa issueback to the centre of the debate, the entireobjective of the BJP-led state government is tokeep the 'pot boiling' and strengthen its coreHindutva vote bank. This perception isreinforced by the fact that the madarsa issue hasbeen raised soon after the Maharashtragovernment's earlier decisions of scrapping 5%reservation to Muslims in education and banningbeef - leaving thousands of Qureshis (butchers)unemployed.

The unusual social media euphoria amongMuslims over two madarsa graduates qualifyingfor the UPSC exams is symptomatic of how thecommunity perceives the government. There isa growing sense among the Muslims that the'system' is working against them. Is it healthy forreligious minorities in the largest democracy ofthe world to think their government worksagainst them? That they will have to try andimprove their lot not with the support of thegovernment but despite it? There is a greatchurning going on within the Muslim communityabout embracing modernity while keeping intactits religiosity. Though keeping roza and doingnamaz five times a day, Muslims do not want tomiss out on the opportunity of being full partnersin 'Digital India'. Young Indian Muslims are asanxious as young people from other communitiesto be a part of India's success story. But can thisbe done by threatening or penalising them? Thegovernment needs to listen to them, take theminto confidence and make them part of itsdecisions. Can't we walk together and be a partof this historical journey called India?

The writer is a senior anchor with Rajya SabhaTV(Courtesy: WIRE)


M.N. Roy on 'Capital Punishment'

"……..How is society benefitted by law adding murders to those committed withoutthe sanction of law? How is it justifiable for law to commit the crime it presumesto punish? Justice is still far from being civilized. She remains a savage goddesswho demands human sacrifice. And gods and goddesses are made after the imageof their worshippers. If the world was really civilized it would not worship savagegoddess with offering of blood. You may place the offering in an electric chair;yet it is human sacrifice." From Jail Diary (1931-1936) of M.N. Roy

Yakub Memon is dead and buried. He waslegally murdered on Thursday, 30 July 2015.This was after the Supreme Court dismissed thefinal petition put forward by a group of eminentlawyers pleading postponement of the sentencein a dramatic hearing that took place in the earlyhours of Thursday, just 2 hours before Yakubwas hanged.

At the face of it, the Indian justice system oftenticks boxes. In this case, it is one that evenlistened to the plea of a terror convict headed forthe gallows. Dig only a little and one will beginnoting the façade. Dig even more and the Indiancriminal justice system is revealed as aretributive system seeking revenge, one that doesnot deliver justice.

How can capital punishment, killing someone toavenge killings or similar heinous crimes,continue in any civilized society? Does this notboil down to saying: okay, you killed or playeda role in killing people, so now we are going tokill you, albeit under the pretence of this killingbeing "under due process of law"? Look at theflimsy logic of awarding death sentence in"rarest of the rare cases" as something meant toact as a deterrent. This logic never did get any

Retributive Justice is Injustice, Your LordshipsAvinash Pandey

support from empirical studies, and is laid barein Yakub's case.

Consider also the absurdity of killing the convictwith most "painless and quickest", in other words"humane", way. The idea of killing someone"humanely" should bring out the paradox that itis. It should further make one look back at theidea of capital punishment being a deterrentagainst humans committing the heinous crimesfor which such punishment is awarded. Why notkill the convict in the most inhuman, tortuous,and barbaric ways, preferably in public view, asit was done in medieval times, if it really is adeterrent. Would that not "deter" would becriminals much more than a "humane" killing?This is, after all, why countries like Saudi Arabiaargue in favour of public beheadings. Why notborrow the entire practice from suchdictatorships instead of only taking the killingand leaving their methods behind?

Let us consider, also, the flip-flop of the Indiancriminal justice system in terms of capitalpunishment. The system has been oscillatingfrom being humane and adding grounds forcommuting death sentence to life terms on onehand to the very opposite on the other for a while

AUGUST 201512

now. Sometimes it has recognized that unduedelay in deciding on mercy petitions of deathrow convicts amounts to torture, as it did inShatrughan Chauhan vs. Union of India case on21 January 2014, in a verdict of a 3-memberbench headed by then Chief Justice P.

Sathasivam. In doing so the bench over-turneda regressive order delivered by a 2-memberbench of the same Court in April 2013. The April2013 verdict in the Devender Pal Singh Bhullarcase had held that those sentenced to death underanti-terror laws could not invoke the argumentof undue delay for commutation. The January2014 judgment overturned this by holding thenature of crime irrelevant in deciding the impactof the delay. And now, the same Court hasdismissed the mercy petition of Yakub Memon,despite his having been on death row for about8 years out of the 22 years he had spent insideprison.

Unfortunately, the randomness is not thatrandom. All the recent hangings showcase adiscernible pattern, one of bloodthirsty, frenzied,mobs seeking revenge and the Indian Judiciarydelivering it to them. Did the Supreme Court nothang Afzal Guru for "satisfying the collectiveconscience of the nation", with nothing morethan circumstantial evidences to seal his fate?But then, it did not find Dara Singh's ghastly actof burning Christian priest Graham Staines andhis two sons alive in Orissa in 1999 rarest of rareand gave him a lifer. No one deserves to getkilled by the state, not even Dara Singh but thatis not the point. The real point is how theincreasing sectarianism of the society has startedgetting reflected in judiciary.

Add to this the apparent randomness in verdictsdelivered on the lives of death row convicts andthe system starts looking other than just.Consider, the possibilities if Yakub Memon'smercy petition had reached a bench of

comprising a different set of justices, such asthose retired justices who had soughtcommutation of Yakub's death sentence. Manysuch retired judges signed the last mercy petitionon Yakub's behalf. This is where this apparentrandomness betrays the design behind it, thedesign that plays out in the formation of benches,in the frenzy that system helps to build in by'leaking' the date of death warrant and so on.

One finds the same sickness again and again insimilar cases: awarding the death sentence andits execution in India is linked to mobs bayingfor blood, mostly the blood of the minorities andother marginalized sections. The increasingcommunalisation of the society and media is onlygoing to add more muscle to such murderousmobs, and their impact throughout society andin the Judiciary itself.

Yakub Memon is dead and gone. It is just thathis death has brought the debate on capitalpunishment back on the table and it is time thecivil society makes a final push for itsabolishment. If it fails, there will, from time totime, be dramatic midnight hearings that makethe system look superficially like a just one. Andthe legal murders following pretentious hearingswill not stop.

Mr. Avinash Pandey, alias Samar is ProgrammeCoordinator, Right to Food Programme, AHRC.He can be contacted [email protected] July 31, 2015

About AHRC: The Asian Human RightsCommission is a regional non-governmentalorganisation that monitors human rights in Asia,documents violations and advocates for justiceand institutional reform to ensure the protectionand promotion of these rights. The

Hong Kong-based group was founded in 1984.


Yakub Memon's case provoked an acrimoniousdebate and name calling. It generated a lot ofheat without any light. With the subject of thedebate coming to an end, it is time to ponderover the issue more dispassionately andjudiciously as becomes a civilised society. Thedebators were divided into two groups - one forhis hanging and the other against it. Both hadstrong feelings behind their arguments makingtheir positions irreconcilable. But those in favourof his execution called the opponents of theirview anti-national and even traitors. Was itrational or fair? Nobody said that he wasinnocent or pleaded for his being pardoned bythe President or the Governor. The point ofdifference was simply that one side felt that heshould be hanged while the other felt that servinga term for life would meet the end of justice.Both the options are on the same legal footingand pleading for either is consistent with the lawof the land. Then was the name calling consistentwith the conduct of a civilised and democraticsociety?

As a matter of fact, even the judges of theSupreme Court have been unable to find criteriafor determining 'the rarest of rare case' in whichan accused should be hanged. Ultimately, thedecision to hang a person or commute his deathsentence to a term for life depends on thesubjective feelings and opinion of the concernedjudge/s. Whether the person will live or diedepends on the accident of the court which ishearing his/her case. In fact, one of thearguments in favour of the abolition of deathsentence is this phenomenon of accident. Whereeven the judges of the highest court are unableto come to a unanimous opinion, is it fair to calllaymen anti-national or traitors because they do

The Unenlightened/Enlightening Debate on Yakub Memon'sDeath Sentence

Prabhakar Sinha

not agree with you?

How difficult is the determination of the rarestof rare case may be shown by an example. Thedeath sentence of the assassins of Rajiv Gandhiwas commuted to life term. In fact, the TNgovernment has even exercised their power topardon them. They are not free because theUnion Government has moved the apex courtagainst the decision. What was the ground onwhich killers of Rajiv Gandhi were excludedfrom the 'class of rarest of rare' cases? Theconspiracy to kill him was hatched in a foreigncountry by foreign nationals engaged in anarmed rebellion against their government andwas executed by foreign nationals with thesupport of Indians. Rajiv Gandhi was an exPrime Minister of our country, and he wasassassinated for some decisions taken by him asPrime Minister. How many ex Prime Ministersof a country have been assassinated by foreignnationals in retaliation for decisions taken asPrime Minister? How many countries have takena lenient view of such a crime? Is there anexample of a State Legislature rising in favourof foreign nationals assassinating their formerPrime Minister on their land? Or the governmentof a State pardoning them?

With such a diversity of stand whether a personsentenced to death should die or not, it is mostundesirable to stoop to name calling andimputing motive. It is most undesirable becauseit poisons the atmosphere in which a healthy andenlightening debate is possible. The media whichprovides the platform is concerned only with itsbusiness, but people's representatives must keepthe national interest above their party interest.

Prabhakar Sinha is President, PUCL

AUGUST 201514

NEW DELHI: A death warrant had been issuedto Afzal Guru, convicted in the Parliament terrorattack case sometime in October 2006, and amercy petition was filed in a hurry on behalf ofhis wife.

Advocate Nandita Haksar and I had helped draftthe petition. Nandita suggested that we shouldseek an appointment with the President of India---Dr APJ Abdul Kalam-- on behalf of Guru'smother, wife and minor son for a personalhearing.

I was sceptical as never before had a Presidentgiven any such opportunity to the family of adeath row convict. Moreover, the Union HomeMinistry was deadly against Guru, determined toensure his execution. Nevertheless we decidedto try, and I wrote to the President. To oursurprise within two days I received a phone callfrom Rashtrapati Bhawan that Dr. Abdul Kalam,the President, had accepted our request and wewere asked to meet him the day after.

Guru's wife, mother and minor son includingNandita Haksar and I went to meet the President.Nandita and I were part of the delegation as theadvocates. The meeting lasted for about onehour. Dr. Kalam first ascertained whether theladies from Kashmir could talk in Urdu/Hindustani. Getting an answer in the affirmativehe said that he would like to hear the family first.Both the mother and wife placed their woesbefore him and he listened patiently andattentively to both of them, with intermittentquestioning. He was affectionate to the childwho was about 8/9 years old. Both Nandita andI made our legal submissions. The President's

Tribute to former President: APJ Abdul Kalam(15 October 1931 - 27 July 2015)

Dr. Abdul Kalam wanted to intervene in Afzal Guru's case

N. D. Pancholi

staff took down notes. He looked serious, andappeared considerate. At the end of the meetinghe said that he would look into it. We came outof the meeting with a glimmer of hope.

Before filing the mercy petition on behalf of thewife, we wanted Afzal Guru himself to file itpersonally on his own behalf. But he was notwilling as he thought it to be of no use, as hefelt the government was determined to hang him.So the petition was filed by the wife. After themeeting with President Abdul Kalam, bothGuru's wife and mother met and gave him thedetails, as to how they were given a patienthearing.

Afzal Guru had already read the news andseemed to be moved by the unprecedentedgesture shown by Dr. Kalam to his family. Themercy petition by the wife was prepared in hasteand we were of the opinion that a properlydrafted document should be prepared and befiled on behalf of Guru himself. This time it waseasy to persuade him. In the first para of hispetition addressed to the President of India Afzalwrote:

"….I myself had no hope that I would get ahearing . However, after my wife, Tabassum, mymother, Ayesha Begum and son Ghalib, told mehow graciously you had received them I wasreally moved and it kindled a new hope that Imay still get justice."

But the Home Ministry was determined to denyjustice to Afzal Guru.

We came to know later that the mercy petitionfiled by him was never sent to Dr. Abdul Kalam,


with or without the comments of the Ministry.

By that time Dr. Kalam had come to entertaindoubts about the death sentence itself. He raisedthe question as to how it was that only thosepersons who belonged to the poorer andmarginalized sections of society were gettingdeath sentences! He publicly expressed hisdoubts.

The Home Ministry seems to have been scaredby his unconventional views. So the mercypetition of Afzal Guru was not sent to Dr. AbdulKalam.

More so as he had already returned 50 mercypetitions in 2005 back to the Home Ministry forreconsideration. He had dismissed only onepetition that of Dhananjay Chatterji, a liftoperator, which he did reluctantly as he saidhimself later on. This delay by the Presidenthelped death row convicts like Devinder PalSingh Bhullar and three others accused in theRajiv Gandhi case. Later the Supreme Courtcommuted their death sentence into life

imprisonment on the ground that there wasunexplained delay in deciding their mercypetitions. These had been dismissed by thepresent President Pranab Mukherjee sometime in2013.

Afzal Guru would have been alive today on thesame grounds had the government not hangedhim secretly on Feb 9, 2013 without followingdue procedure. This was done just a few monthsbefore the judgment of the Supreme Court thatgave relief to Bhullar and the others.

Dr. Abdul Kalam was at heart a man of thepeople and remained so when he became thePresident of India. He led a simple life even asthe President. In him lay a pious soul and kindheart who sought to serve society according todictates of his conscience. He was against deathpenalty and his views in this regard are asignificant contribution to the human rightsmovement for its abolition.

I, personally as well as on behalf of the CitizensFor Democracy, pay our sincere tribute to theman of the people - Dr. Abdul Kalam.

AUGUST 201516

This is Ambedkar's era of the capitalist world inwhich identity matters more than ideology andin capitalist democracies you mobilise peoplemore on symbolic issues so that they do not rebelagainst the ills of these imported democracieswhich are hurting people more as democracytoday is the legitimization of corporate greed andgrabbing of the people's resources. Today,Ambedkar overtakes any other political leader inpost independent India who matter most for thepurpose of politics if not for ideology. He haswritten enormously over a period of nearly 40years of public life. In the business of politicsthe people diametrically opposed to Ambedkar'svision of a 'prabudhha Bharat' or 'enlightenedIndia', which cannot be completed without aninclusive one with participation of religious andlinguistic minorities and socially andeconomically marginalized communities,including their women, are trying to appropriateAmbedkar for their own purposes.

Ambedkar's is a liberator for millions of themarginalized all over the world. The liberationcomes through his core belief in the principle ofstate socialism which he was instrumental inplacing in the preamble of the Constitution ofIndia and most importantly through the 'DirectivePrinciples of the State Policy' as a 'direction' tothe state since he knew that most of the segmentsthat he was speaking for do not have the capacityto raise their own issues and fight for it.

There is no doubt that Ambedkar was a staunchdemocrat and believer in the freedom ofindividual despite having faced obstacles andinsinuations from the upper caste leadership ofdifferent parties including those of thecommunist parties who could not fight against

Ambedkar's Vision of Secular, Socialist IndiaVidya Bhushan Rawat

brahmanical hierarchy and termed everyonefighting against caste system as casteist.Castigating the brahmanical leadership withinparties does not mean that Ambedkar was avotary of capitalism as many of his 'so-called''followers' are trying to portray. Yes, Ambedkarwent to Columbia University in the United Statesand later did his doctorate and post doctoratefrom London School of Economics. He feltliberated in America as none asked his caste andother details about his life, which was a routinefeature in India. He could enter anywhere fromlibraries to hotels without being asked about hiscaste and antecedents. Those were the timeswhen Ambedkar could not get a house to live inIndia, even after becoming the Defence Adviserof the Maharaja of Baroda, just because he wasborn an untouchable. The office assistants orpeons in the college would refuse to give himwater and pass on the files for fear of gettingtouched. Moreover, a debate with Gandhi on theannihilation of caste further made Ambedkaraggressive when Gandhi emphasized theimportance of 'shastras' and 'birth' in a particular'Jaati (caste), ' meaning that you cannot changeyour 'jaati' and must do the work according tothe divinely prescribed 'duties' to that particular'jaati'. Later, he fought for the temple entry ofthe Dalits into Kalaram Temple but realized thatthe caste Hindus were not ready to accommodatethe Dalits on equal terms and then came hishistorical announcement to renounce Hinduismand embrace Buddhism.

Ambedkar's quest for equality with dignityremained till his death but the most importantpart of his mission was fraternity as he feltequality without fraternity was not acceptable tohim and in his numerous articles Ambedkar


mentioned as to why despite his respect for theRussian Revolution, he felt more close toappreciating the French Revolution as theRussian revolution brought equality but notfraternity but the French Revolution broughtfraternity too. This is an important point madeby Ambedkar which is ignored by many of his'admirers' who rarely have time to go through hisentire writings.

We cannot ignore the important aspect of socialjustice, freedom and liberty from Dr Ambedkar'swarning when he presented the first copy of theConstitution of newly independent India to thechairperson of the Constituent Assembly DrRajendra Prasad. He said:

"On the 26th of January 1950, we are going toenter into a life of contradictions. In politics wewill have equality and in social and economiclife we will have inequality.

In politics we will be recognizing the principleof one man one vote and one vote one value.

In our social and economic life, we shall, byreason of our social and economic structure,continue to deny the principle of one man onevalue.

How long shall we continue to live this life ofcontradictions? How long shall we continue todeny equality in our social and economic life?If we continue to deny it for long, we will do soonly by putting our political democracy in peril.We must remove this contradiction at the earliestpossible moment or else those who suffer frominequality will blow up the structure of politicaldemocracy, which this Assembly has solaboriously built up."

The warning was important that country mustfirst become a social democracy to ensure thatits political democracy succeeded because a

failure would keep the entire democratic processin peril. How can political democracy succeedand ensure social democracy?

We are iniquitous society and it was importanttherefore that the modern Constitution of Indiasucceed. It put the responsibility to do certainthings on the State. The responsibility of theIndian State was much bigger and important - tobring equality and social justice to all. TheZamindari Abolition Act was meant todemocratize land relations, which dominate oursocio-political system. In fact, Ambedkar wantedradical land reforms in the form of'nationalization' of land for which he appreciatedhighly the Chinese and Russian models ofagrarian system. Once the private property inagriculture is diminished there would be enoughland for all. Private property was the root causeof social injustice even when Ambedkar couldnot bring many other radical changes in theConstitution because of the pulls and pressuresof diverse sections of our society. He wanted thegovernment to strengthen public sector andinitiate welfare measures, as he knew withoutstate's interventions the vast majority ofmarginalized would never be able to progress. Infact, so much was his faith in the political statethat he felt that the failure of state interventionwould endanger the lives of millions of the Dalitswho were victims of caste system anduntouchability, which were still prevalent in thesociety despite a progressive Constitution.

'State and minorities' was a memorandum onbehalf of the All India Scheduled CasteFederation to the Constituent Assembly in 1946which talked about equality and abolition ofprivileges based on birth, region, hierarchy andthat all the citizens of the country should betreated equally.

Today, it is important to understand Ambedkar

AUGUST 201518

and why the State owes an importantresponsibility towards the Dalits and othermarginalized in our society. Without fulfillingour constitutional promises the power elite of thecountry want that the Indian state abdicate itsresponsibility as a welfare state and embrace'capitalist' system. Thousands of young boys andgirls from Dalits, OBCs and Aadivasis havecome up in the ladder and succeeded in their lifethrough affirmative action programmes. Afterthe Mandal revolution in India in 1990s, theOBC students also succeeded and the powerequations have changed now as Dalits, OBCsand Aadivasis have understood the value of theirvote and have consistently demanded their sharein power. Of course, the Indian state has beenhighly prejudicial and stereotypical against theMuslims who did not get any state protection ascitizens of the country. Muslims and Christianstoo have backwards and Dalits in theircommunities and they need equal protection bythe state.

After the Mandal revolution in 1990, the forcesdetrimental to the Dalit Bahujan communitiesunleashed the policy of economic liberalization,which was actually meant to defeat the socialistagenda as defined by the Constitution of Indiadrafted by Baba Saheb Ambedkar. Socialismbecame a dirty word and all that was 'inefficient'and 'corrupt' was linked to socialism and termedas 'license permit raj'. Actually liberalizationunder Narsimharao was a carefully crafted policyof the upper caste, upper class Hindus who weredesperate to foil the state socialism, whichprovided space and opportunities to the mostmarginalized sections of our society andacceptance of Mandal Commission Reportbecame the death knell for their mischief.

So capitalism in India came in a wrap of anti-Muslim sentiments carefully developed by theHindutva's gangs. Post 1990, on the one side

Dalits and OBCs were asserting for their sharein the power structure and on the other side,India's ruling classes actually ensured that theirshare in the power structure is blocked throughthe vicious privatization process. Reservationwas threatened, natural resources started beingprivatised, Aadivasis started losing their accessto forest and water and crony capitalism startedbeing promoted. Soon, the State started towithdraw from health and education sector andland reforms were considered as problem points.Farmers started losing their fertile land andstarted being made virtually landless. Thus a fewpeople gained to the maximum extent but amajority of them lost their access to jobs, naturalresources and livelihood.

As the country has started standing against thecrony corporate, they are misusing Ambedkartoday and dividing Dalits and Bahujans for theirnarrow political goals. Ambedkar is beingportrayed as a 'free-market economist' andHindutva ideologue. The sad side is that atanother level Ambedkar and Lohia have beenplaced in diametrically opposite camps forpolitical purposes, despite the known fact thatone of the biggest tragedies of Indian politicallife is failure of Ambedkarites, and the followersof Lohia, Periyar and other like-minded peoplecoming together. Lohia actually made all effortsto bring Ambedkar to his political view and feltthat Ambedkar should not be just the leader ofuntouchables alone but of all the Indians. It isimportant to understand that all those whoworked for an inclusive India, from Nehru toLohia, Ambedkar to Bhagat Singh and AcharyaNarendra Dev to M N Roy, socialism was anarticle of faith and if the ruling classes of todayare deviating from its path, they are not justbetraying the historical legacy of India's freedommovement but also playing a fraud to ourConstitution.


Rammanohar Lohia had played an important rolein the Democratic Socialist movement in India.Recently Lohia's 105th birth anniversary wascelebrated in several places. Writing in the LohiaSpecial issue of Janata weekly in 1968, aSocialist leader Nanasaheb Goray says, "For acomprehensive and definitive study of Dr.Rammanohar Lohia's contribution to theSocialist thought and practice, we may have towait for a few more years. But it is only a yearsince his death and, when the loyalties hecommanded and the antagonisms he provokedare so fresh in the minds of his compatriots andhis colleagues, an objective evaluation in depthis hardly to be expected." It has been now morethan 45 years since he died. I think the time isnow appropriate to revisit some of his ideas onSocialism.

The Socialist Party had decided to meet in aconvention to conduct a post-mortem of itsdefeat in the first general elections. AcharyaNarendra Deva, the doyen of Indian Socialism,who had been elected the Chairman of the Partyand was to have presided over the nextconvention, was on a visit to China. When AsokaMehta who was the General Secretary of theParty consulted Jayaprakash Narayan as to whoshould be asked to preside over the conventionin place of Acharya Narendra Deva, JayaprakashNarayan suggested Rammanohar Lohia's name.Thus Rammanohar Lohia was asked to presideover a Special Convention of the Socialist Partyheld at Panchamadhi, Madhya Pradesh, from23rd to 27th May 1952. Asoka Mehta proposedto Rammanohar Lohia that in his Presidentialaddress he should 'deal with the doctrinalproblems of the movement and discuss thepolitical line for the future so that the addresscould become a basis for discussion at the

Lohia's Socialism - RevisitedBapu Heddurshetti*

Convention'. Lohia's followers claim that Lohialaid the doctrinal foundation of Socialism in hispresidential speech delivered at the PanchamadhiConvention. His presidential speech is publishedin Lohia's book, 'Marx, Gandhi and Socialism'under the title, 'Doctrinal Foundation ofSocialism'.

I wish to draw the attention of the readers onlyto the three positions taken by Lohia in thatspeech: the chronological placement ofCapitalism, Socialism and Communism; statingthe means to achieve Socialism as the 'aims' ofSocialism and the value orientation oftechnology.

It appears there is a chronological confusion inLohia's placement of Capitalism, Socialism andCommunism. Lohia chronologically placesSocialism after Capitalism and Communism. Inhis speech at Panchamadhi, Lohia says,"Socialism is a newer doctrine than Capitalismor Communism." That this was not a passingremark and that Lohia was serious about whathe had said, becomes clear from the next fewlines in his speech. He further says, "That willexplain some of its failings and also give hope,"and further, "But the career of Socialism isimpeded most by its inability hitherto to securea doctrinal foundation."

While it can be tenuously contended thatSocialism is a doctrine that emerged afterCapitalism, the correct chronology is thatSocialism emerged along with Capitalism as aprotest against it; it is difficult to see howSocialism is a newer doctrine compared toCommunism unless one denies the status of adoctrine to Socialism, which Lohia appears todo. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels in their'Communist Manifesto' wrote a chapter entitled

AUGUST 201520

"Socialist and Communist Literature" in whichthey reviewed the various forms of Socialismlike Feudal Socialism, Petty Bourgeois Socialismetc. In 1880, Engels wrote a separate book"Socialism - Scientific and Utopian" to mark thedifference between his Socialism which heclaimed to be scientific and the Socialismadvocated by Socialists like Robert Owen, SaintSimon and Charles Fourier, each one of whomhad preceded Karl Marx and Frederick Engels.Actually it is a Socialist John Goodwin Barmabiwho had first used the word 'Communism' in theletters that he wrote from Paris which werepublished in the journal 'The New Moral World'.

The word Socialism is used by historians ofSocialist movement as a generic termencompassing in it the various schools ofSocialist thought including the scientific one ofMarx and Engels. Anarchists also calledthemselves 'Libertarian Socialists'. Even if Lohiameant Democratic Socialism, when he said thatSocialism is a newer doctrine than Capitalism orCommunism, even then, Democratic Socialismwas at least a contemporary development withCommunism, if not antecedent to it. The fatherof Democratic Socialism, Louis Blanc was bornfive years before Karl Marx and died one yearbefore Marx died.

It also cannot be argued that Lohia had in hismind what Marx called 'primitive communism'when he placed Socialism later thanCommunism. Because, if that were so, whilespeaking to the workers of his Socialist Party in1962 at Nagarjunasagar, Lohia himself said thatas a doctrine of 'anaasakti'- non-attachment -Socialism can be traced to Vedic times. Did hemean that 'primitive communism' predated 'VedicSocialism'? As a matter of fact, if equality is thecentral core value of Socialism, then the mostforceful demand for equality made by François-Noël Babeuf (1760-1797) emanated in the'Manifesto of the Equals', during the 'Conjuration

des Égaux' (Conspiracy of the Equals) of theFrench Revolution, when even the word'Communism' was not in existence. Hence, it isa little confusing, if not amusing that Lohia saysthat, Socialism is a newer doctrine thanCapitalism or Communism.

Lohia then defines the economic aims ofSocialism: "The establishment of socialownership over existing means of production,their further development and mass productionand some kind of a planned economy areacknowledged in varying degrees as theeconomic aims of Socialism." He thenjuxtaposes the economic aims of Socialism withthe economic aims of Capitalism: "In itseconomic aims, it seeks mass production and lowcosts and profit to owners." He then definescommunism also, "Communism is a doctrine ofsocial ownership and of release of means ofproduction from their relations of privateproperty."

When Lohia uses the word 'aims' does he mean'means', for the programs that he mentions likeestablishing social ownership of means ofproduction, or mass production can only be'means' of establishing a Socialist economy. Isn'tthe economic aim of Socialism establishment ofeconomic equality and the 'social ownership overexisting means of production, their furtherdevelopment and mass production and somekind of a planned economy' only the means? Itis interesting that Lohia does not even use theword equality in defining the economic aims ofSocialism. Writing about the 'Confusion betweenmeans and ends' Anthony Crosland says, "Butthe worst source of confusion is the tendency touse the word to describe, not a certain kind ofsociety, or certain values which might beattributes of such a society, but particular policieswhich are, or are thought to be, means toattaining this kind of society, or realizing theseattributes." In his Presidential address to the


Conference of the Socialist Party held at Madrasin 1950, Asoka Mehta appears to rightly say that"Not ends but means divide the Socialists andspread confusion in the ranks of simple people."

Further in his speech at Panchamadhi, Lohiasays, that "Communism inherits from Capitalismits technique of production; it only seeks tosmash the capitalist relations of production,"which means that Communism also opts formass production. Further he says, "Socialismshould cease to live on borrowed breath. Toolong has it borrowed from Communism itseconomic aims and from Capitalism or theliberal age its non-economic and general aims."Thus Lohia implies that Socialism also borrowsthe technology from Capitalism andCommunism.

The underlying presumption of the statement isthat technology per se is value oriented, thattechnology can be Capitalist, Communist or evenSocialist. The contradiction is obvious. If atechnique can be Capitalist, how can it be usedby Communism and also by Socialism. IfCommunism, Capitalism and Socialism coulduse the same technique, would not the techniquebe value-neutral? Can 'wheel' be said to be'feudal' or 'capitalist' or 'communist' or even'socialist'? If the technique of mass production

is used to produce luxury cars, will it be acapitalist technology and if used for producingkerosene stoves, a communist or Socialisttechnology? When a professor of Hindi languagewas asked if a 'bicycle' was a term with femininegender or masculine gender, as there is no'neuter' gender in Hindi, he appears to haveanswered that if a boy was riding it, it wasmasculine gender and if a girl was riding it, itwas a feminine gender. Thus if a technology canbe used to maintain inequalities by the capitalistsociety, can it not be used to achieve equality bythe Socialists? Then what did Lohia mean whenhe said that Communism borrows its techniqueof production from Capitalism?

Asoka Mehta in his foreword to "Studies inSocialism" says, "In India today almost everyoneclaims to be a Socialist. Such is the position inmost parts of Asia and Africa also, where coloredpeople have regained freedom. The nearunanimity, however, is based upon a lack ofclarity and precision."

*Bapu Heddurshetti,[email protected].

Articles/Reports for The Radical HumanistPlease note the change in the email ID and the postal address

Dear Friends,

Please mail your articles/reports for publication in the RH to:

[email protected] or post them to: G-3/617, Shalimar Garden Extn. I, Rose Park,Sahibabad, Ghaziabad- 201005 (U.P.)

Please send your digital passport size photograph and your brief resume if it is being sent for thefirst time to the RH.

A note whether it has also been published elsewhere or is being sent exclusively for the RH shouldalso be attached with it.

— Mahi Pal Singh, Editor, The Radical Humanist

1. The Future of Socialism: Anthony Crosland, P. 65.2. Collected Works of Dr. Rammanohar Lohia: Ed.Mastram Kapoor: Vol. 1. P. 495.

AUGUST 201522

The contest between advocates of theism andatheism is as old as humanity. The case remainsunresolved till today. While scientists are findingevidence contrary to their materialisticexpectation in favor of a creator of this world,who out of his infinite wisdom created a rationalworld, the atheists are growing in number andatheism is coming up with new argumentspointing towards the harmful effects of faith. Theintolerance of faith and growing terrorism bornout of religious fervor has put strong question onthe utilitarian value of God. Here we want toexamine not whether God exists or not butwhether faith is useful or harmful for humancivilization. We want to emphasize the word faithand our concern with human beings as opposedto God. A word has to be put that we includeboth spiritual wellbeing and material wellbeing,when we say we are concerned with humanbeings.

The existence of multiple faiths and theassociated intolerance and hatred one faith hastowards another faith makes it necessary to saythat faith also leads to spiritual ill health. Thisargument is further strengthened when weobserve that faith breeds ill will towards anotherhuman being and divides people instead ofspreading compassion, friendship and unityamong human beings. The crusades, the disputein Jerusalem and Islamic terrorism of present dayall are examples of harmful effects of faith. Indiaalso has witnessed the tragic event of massacreduring partition and the 1984 massacre of Sikhs.The present day Islamic terrorism and the hardline intolerance of Sangh parivar and thesponsored anti-Muslim feelings are alsoillustration of harmful effects of faith on ourIndian civilization.

On the other hand faith impels many Christiansto exhibit charity, many Muslims to show

A Case for Beyond FaithTarun Patnaik

humility and many Hindus to see divinity inanother human being. Christians learn love,Muslims brotherhood and Hindus devotion fromreligion.

One of the major faiths of the world based onatheism is Buddhism. Buddhist ethics is sourcedfrom Buddhist outlook of life. While all othermajor religions like Christianity, Islam andHinduism derive their ethics from interpretationof God the creator of this world, Buddhist ethicsis based on Buddhist philosophy. Buddhism is atruly humanist religion. It inspires us to believethat God can be done away with. However, bybelieving in rebirth, and existence of an eternalsoul, Buddhism makes space for supernaturalevents.

We would have taken Buddhism to be abovepetty partisanship but history would make usbelieve otherwise. The repression of Tamils inSri Lanka, the civil war and Sinhali-Tamilconflict which led to a bloody war is a politicalstruggle and indicates that faith is susceptible toethical transgression from other types of identity.That Sinhali identity dominates over the valueof compassion taught by their Buddhist religion.

Communism is another philosophy which isbased on atheism. Communist ethics is derivedfrom materialist considerations. Communismrejects spirituality in human beings. Communismwhile being more of an economic philosophy haspolitical and spiritual dimensions. China underMao tried to reject even Buddhist religion andwanted to create a communist society. Buddhismand Communism have got ethical andphilosophical conflict. But communists believein coercion and violence, and if it suits them theydo not hesitate to kill. They do not value lifewhich has a dangerous repercussion. Whilecommunism is directly against religion,


capitalism corrupts religious ethics by promotingselfishness and market profit.

Faith is a useful tool for our spiritual health. Andoften spiritual health overflows to physical andmental health. Unfortunately religion alsoteaches partisanship. The good qualities faithteaches to show towards another human beingremain confined to people of that same faith. Theheart of people of one religion remainsuntouchable to people of another religion.

So does that mean that faith should be abolished?That human beings should not believe in God?That atheism has better utility?

On a closer examination we should find thathuman civilization cannot help but wonder at thesupernatural. That God is a discovery as muchas is an invention. That God cannot be doneaway with. But his form can change. Hisinterpretation can change.

Amid the contradictory proclaims, I want to endthe article with a hopeful note.

We can overcome the limitations of religion. Wecan go beyond the boundaries of faith to includeall human beings in the fold of the sphere of thegood nature taught by religion. That way we candefeat the hatred in us. Love, brotherhood anddevotion can defeat hate, enmity andcondescending feeling we feel towards the foldof another religion.

The source of strength to go beyond partisanreligion can be found only in the good qualitiestaught by religion. While secularism is a goodvalue for a state, it is not of much use to theindividual as far as personal faith is concerned.Secularism often negates faith. (The OxfordEnglish Dictionary [OED Vol. IX 1978] statesthat Secularism is the doctrine that moralityshould be based solely on regard to the well-being of mankind in the present life to theexclusion of all considerations drawn from beliefin God or in a future state). We want that oneshould go beyond faith to possess goodwill forall faiths. So what is necessary is not to forgetGod but to reconcile God with Humanwellbeing.

Reader's CommentsDear Editor

Congratulations on the July 2015 issue of the RH. I read every word of it as it looked at theEmergency from the prism of both civil liberties as well as the fast-vanishing ethos of civilsociety activism in India. The write ups about and by V M Tarkunde were both topical andinformative.

Hope to read many such features in the future.

Sangeeta Mall, Former Managing Editor, Radical Humanist

Dear Pancholiji and Mahipalji,

I have received a copy of the radical humanist. I don't know whether Pancholiji or Mahipaljisent it, so writing to both of you to say thank you. Kindly send it to me regularly. I will depositthe subscription fee in the account of rh.

Pancholiji, your piece on Justice Tarkunde is very informative. Also by publishing the 'judicialsuicide' piece you all have done a great job.

With regards and best wishes,

Pramodini

AUGUST 201524

There is a growing realisation throughout theworld that the political life of our time is notleading to the results which are the object of allmodern democratic politics. That suggests thepossibility of an alternative kind of politicalpractice.

From the Writings of M.N. Roy:

A Politics for Our TimeM.N. Roy

Any political practice logically presupposes acertain political theory. Consequently, when wewant to evolve a politics suitable for our time,we shall have to be clear about its theoreticalfoundation as well as its practical application.The politics of our time outside the communist

(This lecture was delivered by M.N. Roy on February 17, 1949 even before theConstitution of India came into being. But, M.N. Roy, a great visionary as he was,visualised the shape of things to come so far as the functioning of parliamentarydemocracy was going to take place in the country. He visualised how there was goingto be mad scramble for power by politicians winning elections using money and musclepower, and how they were going to neglect the people who would vote for them; howthe party leaders were going to be dictatorial in their approach and how electedrepresentatives of the people were going to be more responsible and accountable totheir respective political parties and not to their electors; how delegation of thesovereignty, which rightfully belongs to them, by the people to their parliamentarianswas going to make them completely powerless and helpless, being denuded of theirdemocratic freedoms and rights, before the so-called 'servants of the people' who weregoing to become their rulers and how democracy, 'the government of the people andby the people', was going to become 'the government for the people' run by modernMaharajas and their family members for their own benefits. Roy not only visualisedthe problem but also suggested the remedy of bringing in 'power to the people' or directdemocracy, as defined by some political scientists, empowering the people at thegrassroots: exercise of the people's sovereignty by themselves through 'People'sCommittees', putting up their own candidates for election and not voting for thecandidates put up by various political parties.

In 'Politics, Power and Parties' Roy has given a realistic view of our politics and partiestoday. During the last 68 years of our independence, morality and idealism hascompletely disappeared from our politics, parties and our political leaders. Given thecondition of our politics today, and for the betterment of our political life anddemocracy in our country Roy's views are insightful and worth considering. Therefore,in order to present a complete view of Roy's thoughts on all these issues facing ourcountry, we are starting this 15th August 2015 the publication of his lectures/articlescompiled in the book for the benefit of our readers. - Editor)


countries is generally considered to bedemocratic politics. Democratic freedom hasbeen the political ideal of the modern world formore than a century and a half. As thedevelopment of mankind is not an even process,the political development of the modern worldalso has been uneven. Some countries haveadvanced towards democratic freedom more thanothers, while there are some still quite remotefrom the conditions of social development wheredemocratic political practice becomes possible.

If we want to judge democratic political theoryas well as practice pragmatically, we shall haveto review the history of the countries where thispolitical theory has been put into practice.Therefore, when a country like India which, aftera long period of struggle for politicalindependence, has attained a stage when it canadopt a political system and a political theory ofits choice, and put it into practice according toits own peculiar conditions, we shall naturallyhave to review the history of the countries whichhave gone ahead of us on the road that we havechosen and learn from their experience.

Democracy today is no longer an unknownUtopia. We do not have to learn its ways by themethod of trial and error. We have the experienceof many countries to go by, and if we find thatdemocracy as conceived and practised during thelast 150 years has not produced the desiredresults, we shall be well advised to think of otherforms of democratic political theory and practice,and that may then be the politics of our time.

It is held by some Indian historians and politicalthinkers that democracy is nothing new to thiscountry that it was practised in ancient India andalso in other countries of antiquity. That is acontroversial subject, and a matter of historicalresearch. At any rate, modern democracy, asgenerally understood, and as it is beingintroduced in our country, is only a century and

a half old, and it is a feature of what is calledmodern civilisation. Thus conceived, it is acontribution of modern Europe.

Democratic political theory, evolved out of abackground of intellectual development since the15th and 16th century came to be applied in the18th and 19th century in a number of countries.This modern democracy has its origin in the ideaof "individual" liberty. It is believed that ademocratic form of government, a democraticsocial order, is likely to afford the greatestmeasure of freedom to the individual. Themeasure of freedom actually enjoyed byindividual men is the measure of freedomenjoyed by any society.

This point of departure was something verypromising in the history of mankind. In that light,democratic political theory offered the greatestchance of freedom, in the political and socialsense. Nevertheless, we cannot ignore the factthat, after 150 years of practice, democracy hasnot produced the result that it promised at thetime of its appearance a century and half ago.There is a tendency to deduce from thisundeniable fact that democracy is not possible,or that democracy is not the best possible formof political regime. These doubts raised byexperience cannot be simply dismissed. Thosewho want to think of the possibilities of a betterpolitical system must examine these doubts,which are apparently backed up by theexperience of several generations.

The assertion that democracy is not the bestpossible form of government can be logicallyadmitted without any controversy, because noform of government, no single system of humanorganization , can claim finality. If we believethat human progress is the result of unlimitedhuman creativeness and the unfoldment ofhuman potentialities, then we cannot regard anypolitical system or economic organisation or any

AUGUST 201526

social institution to be the ultimately best. Wecan only say that, at the moment, no better formcan be conceived, or has been conceived.

Democracy means, etymologically as well ashistorically, government of the people and by thepeople. The fundamental principle of democraticpolitical theory is that sovereignty belongs to thepeople. Since the people are the sovereignpower, government by the people and of thepeople would naturally be the best possiblegovernment. Theoretically, this appears to beunchallengeable. Any alternative so far hasstarted from a negation of the principle thatsovereignty belongs to the people. Democracywas preceded by various forms of monarchistgovernments. At one time, kings ruled absolutelyby divine right; later they were constitutionalmonarchs. No monarchy can admit thesovereignty of the people. The sovereign powerwas believed to rest in certain individuals whoclaimed the right either from some divine sourceor because of dynastic descent.

The alternatives to democracy from the otherside are the Various modern forms ofdictatorship, which assert that people as a wholeare not qualified to administer their own affairs;therefore, the responsibility and the right ofruling a particular community belongs to somespecially qualified or ordained individuals orgroups of individuals. By comparison, thedemocratic conception of popular sovereignty,according to which the people are qualified andentitled to rule themselves according to their ownlight and wishes, appears to be certainly betterthan either of the two other alternatives.Therefore, it is quite reasonable to conclude thatthe democratic form of government is at leasttheoretically the best form of government so farconceived, without excluding the possibility that,in course of time, men will evolve some stillbetter form of governing themselves.

But having made that impartial assessment of the

value of democratic theory and practice inprinciple, we shall have to turn to the record ofdemocracy in practical experience. And thatrecord is certainly not too bright. If we examinethat record closely, we shall discover that theredeveloped a discrepancy between democratictheory and practice. The present condition of theworld is the result of that contradiction. Havingdiscovered that contradiction, we shall have toascertain if that contradiction can be eliminated,that is to say, if democracy can be practicedaccording to its own theory.

Democracy started from the two admirableprinciples of individual freedom and of popularsovereignty. But having started from thoseunexceptionable principles, in practicedemocracy immediately deviated from thoseprinciples. We do not have to examine only therecord of parliamentary democracy in the 19thcentury. We may go all the way back to the manwho has been recognized in history as theprophet of modern democracy, to discover thatdemocracy, however well conceived, was bornwith a crippling defect, because of which it nevergot a fair chance. That prophet was the Frenchphilosopher Rousseau, who is credited withhaving developed the ideal of democracy. Likeall the leaders of the French Revolution,Rousseau also drew his inspiration from theexperience of ancient Greece.

The idea of democracy, including its name, wasderived from there. The ideal of democracy, asthe early leaders of the French Revolutionconceived it, was the direct democracy of ancientGreece. There, democracy had been practised insmall City Republics, inhabited perhaps by nomore than ten to twenty-thousand people. Sinceit could not be practised in 18th century Europe,where States consisted of entire countriesinhabited by millions of people, Rousseauimmediately came up against this fact, whichwas irreconcilable with the practice of direct


democracy as it had been practised in Greece;and yet, if democracy was ever to be practised,it must indeed be direct democracy, to the largestpossible extent.

Hence it was necessary to find new ways andmeans to practise democracy. Rousseau was aman of great imagination. He was rather adreamer and a poet than a political thinker.Giving reign to his imagination, he arrived at theconception of a General Will, and devised asystem by which the General Will of a peoplecould be ascertained. Any institution whichcould claim to embody the General Will, shouldbe considered as a democratic institution.

Starting from the conception of individualfreedom, Rousseau admitted that every memberof a community had individual interests, andwhen in operation, the individual interests of allthe members of the community cancelled eachother. But apart from their individual interests,according to Rousseau's theory of the origin ofsociety in a social contract, the members of acommunity alienated their individual interestsand pledged themselves to work for the commoninterest. Once individual interests have cancelledeach other, there remains a residue of generalinterest based on the surrender of individualrights, and out of that surrender emerged theconcept of the General Will.

This concept was fraught with dangerousconsequences. When democracy was to beintroduced in the post-revolutionary period, thatis, after the defeat of Napoleon, thismetaphysical concept of a General Will,interpreted in political terms, took the form ofthe delegation of power from the people to someother agencies. But already during the FrenchRevolution, the dangerous significance of thisdoctrine of the General Will made itself felt, andit was on the claim that he represented theGeneral Will of the French people that

Robespierre tried to establish a dictatorshipthrough the terroristic regime which practicallydestroyed the positive outcome of the FrenchRevolution.

Some political theoreticians and thinkers of ourtime have, therefore, traced the origin of moderndictatorships, particularly the fascist form ofdictatorship, to Rousseau's concept of theGeneral Will. This metaphysical concept ofGeneral Will can indeed become the moralsanction of a dictatorship. But immediately afterthe French Revolution, when democracy came tobe established in the 19th century, the difficultyof practising direct democracy was solved by thepractice of delegation of power,, Since the entirepeople of a large country cannot possibly directlyparticipate individually in the administration, asystem was devised by which the peopleconstitutionally delegated their authority to asmaller group of people which ruled the countryas custodians of the sovereign people and itspower. This system has become known asparliamentary democracy. The only form inwhich democracy has been practised so far wasbased on this principle of delegation of power.

Every individual is sovereign and has a right tochoose the government of his country.Accordingly, elections take place periodically inwhich every individual can record his choice.The sovereign people, as electors, vote for someindividuals, or for some groups of individualsformed for the purposes of elections, calledparties. The implication of this vote was todelegate his sovereign power to a group ofindividuals or some party, which became therepositories of the sovereignty for the periodbetween two elections. Now, the practice ofdemocracy shows that between two elections thesovereign people is nowhere in the picture andhas absolutely no possibility of controlling thosewho are ruling the country on behalf of them;and consequently delegation of power, for all

AUGUST 201528

practical purposes, has become surrender ofpower. The people exercise their sovereignty bysurrendering it from time to time. That was thebasic contradiction of democratic practice.Because of this contradiction,, democracyeventually became discredited and suppliedplausible reasons for the rise of various forms ofdictatorship.

So long as direct democracy will not bepossible, there does not seem to be anyalternative to indirect democracy, which isindeed a negation of the fundamental principleof democracy. Developments since the early 20thcentury seem to have made the possibility ofdirect democracy even more remote. On the basisof democratic principles and practice, all-powerful States have been founded and these allpowerful States today are in s position to ignorecompletely the wishes and the very existence ofthe people. Even at the time of elections thepeople cannot decide, cannot choose individualsaccording to their own intelligent judgment, butall have to vote for this or that party, often notknowing even the individuals who are candidatesof these parties, and therefore are unable to judgeand choose the men who are going to rule them.

In the earlier days of parliamentary democracy,for instance in England, individuals still appealedto the voters for their suffrage on their own merit.As a rule the candidate belonged to theconstituency and had been known to the electors,and the voters were in a position to judgewhether the particular individual was qualifiedto have their confidence. While individualcandidates appealed for the vote, there was someelement of direct democracy. It was a relationbetween a group of voters and individual. Butlater on when parliamentary practice led to whatis known as the party system, during the last fiftyyears or more, the individual completelydisappeared from politics whether as candidatefor election or as elector. On the one hand, we

have the mass of people, and on the other, wehave parties. The individual man and hisjudgment, his discretion and will are nowhere inthe picture. Appeals are not made to individualvoters and their power of reasoning, but to thesentiment of masses. The purpose of electionpropaganda is to create a state of mass hysteria,to create either hatred for one or bias in favourof some other party. Consequently, when thetime tomes for the sovereign people to make thecrucial decision of selecting persons who can beentrusted with their fate for a period of four orfive years, the electorate is in a state where nodiscriminating judgment is at all possible,whipped up into a state of frenzy and driven likecattle to the polling stations to cast their votes.With music, brass-bands, flags and shouting, thejudgment of the people is dulled and benumbed;they are placed under some spell, and in thatcondition they are asked to decide their fate. Thisis naturally more so in backward countries, buton principle it is the same everywhere.

On the other hand, when votes are canvassed fora party, once the popular vote brings a man tothe parliament, his responsibility is not to thepeople who vote for him, but to the partymachinery which has ensured his election bysupplying the money and the brass-band.

As a result of these practices over a long periodof time, modern parliamentary democracy hasdegenerated into a scramble for power amongparty machineries. Different parties approach thepeople with the claim to represent them morefaithfully than others, to be better defenders ofpopular interests and aspirations, and thereforeask for the vote of the people. Under the best ofcircumstances, these parties alternate in powerand divide the government between themselves.Government of the people and by the people iscompletely forgotten and has been replaced bygovernment for the people; in other words it isnot a really democratic form of government.


The first criticism of this formal democracy wasoffered by Socialists. From the time of KarlMarx, they pointed out these defects anddeficiencies of parliamentary democracy, andcame to the conclusion that parliamentarydemocracy degenerated in this way not becauseof its internal discrepancy between theory andpractice, it is only an instrument for oneparticular class to establish its dictatorship. Thecorollary suggests itself logically: Since formaldemocracy is the dictatorship of one class,therefore the other classes or the class which aresuppressed and exploited are entitled tooverthrow the dictatorship of the oppressing andexploiting class and establish its owndictatorship. In course of time, this alternativecame to be advocated by the "revolutionary"communist school of Marxists; the "reformist"Socialists, however, did not accept it andmaintained that dictatorship was not inherent inKarl Marx's teachings.

By advocating dictatorship as an alternative toa defective form of democracy, Marxist criticsdid not maintain that democracy was notdesirable but only that its bourgeoisparliamentary form was defective. But that wasnot a sufficiently strong argument formaintaining that an out and out dictatorship isbetter than or veiled dictatorship or a defectivedemocracy. The argument was however, taken uplater by another opposition to or revolt against,democracy, which also offered dictatorship as thealternative. That school pointed out that underthe democratic system government becameweak. In course of time, many parties appear onthe scene; there are continuous elections becausein no parliament can any particular party have aclear majority anymore; coalition governmentshave to be formed in which the various partiesquarrel among themselves, which leads tofrequent cabinet crisis; one government after theother falls and new elections take place in quick

succession. There follows a state of politicalinstability and growing threat of a breakdown ofthe State machinery, a weakening of publicmorality and insecurity of society.

Based on these undeniable facts, the newadvocates of dictatorship maintained thatdemocracy was a sign of decay of moderncivilisation. Therefore, those who stand for aregeneration of the human race, a rehabilitationof mankind, must discard this decadent systemand go back to the earlier system where the willof nation was expressed through great men,heroes and supermen, those great men being theembodiment of the will of the people, andtherefore the most competent to rule on behalfof the people.

That was the doctrine of fascist dictatorship orNational-Socialism. In the period between thetwo wars from 1920 to 1939, Democracy,attacked from two sides by advocates ofdictatorship, lost ground step by step, and, exceptin a few countries, was replaced by some formor other of dictatorship practically all overEurope.

But even then the advocates of democracy who,in the critical days, wanted to have a democraticfront against Fascism on the one side andCommunism on the other, did not see theinherent defects of democracy and did not feelthe necessity of broadening their concept ofdemocracy, so that it could stand the challengeand survive the crisis of the contemporary world.If we now think of a politics for the future, itimplies that we are, on the one hand, rejectingthe various forms of dictatorship and, on theother, realize that Democracy as practised so faris not adequate. It cannot stand the crisis.Therefore, democratic principles must bereorientated. Democratic ideas must be enrichedby experience, and a more effective form ofdemocratic practice must be conceived.

AUGUST 201530

Because this is a challenging test of humaningenuity, there are people who jump to thefacile conclusion that, Democracy, havingproved a failure, dictatorship is to be preferred,if society is to be administered in an orderly andefficient manner. But under dictatorship theworst defects of Democracy-namely practicalelimination of popular sovereignty and negationof the principle of individual freedom-will bestill further aggravated. That is not animprovement on defective Democracy for thosewho cherish the ideals of individual freedom andsovereignty of the people. Hence, when thinkingof a political theory and practice suitable for ourtime, they must reject dictatorship as a possiblealternative.

The practice of delegation of power is a negationof Democracy, because it can never establishgovernment of the people and by the people. Itcan, under the best of circumstances, onlyestablish government for the people, which,again in the best of cases, may be a benevolentdictatorship, but not Democracy. It goes withoutsaying that in a large country, with millions ofinhabitants and where all power is concentratedin a centralized government, rule of the peopleand by the people is not possible. Therefore, wemust think of a decentralised structure which willmake a more direct form of Democracy apractical proposition.

If such a system is possible, it would at the sametime eliminate another defect of parliamentaryDemocracy: Parliamentary Democracy and itsphilosophy, that is, Liberalism, visualiseindividuals in a scattered atomized existence.The individual is held to be free, but that is only

an abstract conception as long as the freeindividual is part of a social system in which heis deprived of the effective use of his freedom.Consequently, this concept of the atomisedindividual left to his own devices leads to a state

of complete helplessness on the part of thecitizens. On the other hand, it destroys theconcept of popular sovereignty, because nosingle individual can think of exercising hissovereign power, and that realisation has grownas social

structures have become more and more complex.This has resulted in the prevailing psychologicaltendency of seeking security in the mass.Helplessness creates in individuals the tendencyof identifying themselves with others equallyhelpless, of merging themselves in some

collectivity, be it called nation or class, in whichthe helpless individual constituents acquire analmost mystic power merely by losingthemselves into a mass. Collectivism offerssecurity against the helplessness to which theindividual is condemned under the system offormal parliamentary Democracy.

Modern psychologists and sociologists havedealt with this phenomenon in great detail. Thismass mentality of our democratic age has beendescribed as fear of freedom, or flight fromfreedom. If we want to restore Democracy to itsoriginal meaning, we shall have to see if twoconditions can be created: firstly, if a democraticState can be decentralised; that is, if in themodern world a decentralised State structure ispossible, so that direct democracy can becomea practical proposition; and, on the other hand,if man's faith in himself can be restored. We startfrom the proposition that institutions, political oreconomic, are created by men. They are createdby man to serve his purpose, which is thepurpose of having a full life, a good life, and ofdeveloping all aspects of his life and all hispotentialities. Every institution is as good as themen who work it. But in the modern world therelation between individuals and institutions hasbeen reverse. Supreme importance is attached toinstitutions, and man is subordinated to them.


Social progress is not visualised as the resultantof the development of individuals or groups ofindividuals, but as structural changes imposedfrom above, from time to time. This reversal ofrelations between man and man-madeinstitutions evidently is a denial of thefundamental concept of Democracy, because itcompletely eliminates man and his sovereigntyfrom the picture of things. Therefore, if a betterform of political theory and practice is to beevolved, we shall have to see if this abnormalrelation can be reversed again, if man can beplaced in his proper position of primacy andsupremacy.

The beginning must be made by those who wantto bring about social changes themselvesattaching greater importance to individuals thanto institutions. Because, a few good andintelligent people can think of some very goodnew institutions, but if these institutions will berun by human beings whose ideas are not so newand not so good, they will not produce theexpected result. That is the fundamental causeof all the corruption and inefficiency of whicheverybody is complaining, and which is a featureto be found everywhere in the world. Andeverywhere the emphasis is on new forms ofinstitutions instead of on a new outlook of themen who are to work the institutions. On thecontrary, it is held that, if better institutions couldbe imposed from above, through theinstrumentality of State power or by somemiraculous means, men would also becomebetter by | this very fact. The contention seemsto be that institutions are not made by men, butmen are made by institutions!

This is the crux of the problem of the modernworld. Attention must be concentrated on thisproblem. It is evident that a new approach to thisproblem will have to be based on certainphilosophical principles and if it is to be ademocratic approach, the principles must be

humanist. The general belief is that the commonman cannot think for himself and is incapable tojudge what is good or bad, for him and ingeneral, and therefore, the common man must beled. For this reason we need either leaders orparties to lead the people and rule the countries.They might go to the extent of guaranteeing tothe people die widest suffrage, but that is all theycan do because, according to that philosophy, thepeople are not, and will never be, capable ofruling themselves.

Is this disparaging idea of man permissible in thelight of the knowledge that we possess of thehuman being? Modern scientific knowledge hasestablished that every human being, barring thediseased or deformed, has the same potentialitiesto develop as every other human being.Development will be uneven because somehuman beings start with an advance over others,and even as the latter catch up with them, theytoo will have further advanced. But subject toindividual diversities, each man is endowed withthe same basic potentialities of development.

It is scientific knowledge that every human beinghas the capacity to think, that rational thinking,the quality of intelligence, are in the nature ofman. It is an unfortunate fact that owing to longdisuse, because traditions and social institutionsnever appealed to them, a large number of menhave been made to forget that they are born asthinking being and endowed with the power ofjudgment, that they can discriminate betweenwhat is right and what is wrong, what is goodand what is bad, without having to rely on anyexternal authority for that knowledge. If themodern world is to come out of this perilouscrisis, if the sovereign people is to emerge fromthis state of degradation, there is no other waythan to make a growing number of menconscious of their essential human attributes, toawaken their self-respect and self-reliance, theirpride to be men.

AUGUST 201532

One of the oldest sages, Plato, attempted tovisualise the possibility of an ideal State. He wasthe first to formulate a democratic theory basedon the experience of the practice of directDemocracy in the Greek City States. On thebasis of that experience of the politics in themarket place of Pericletan Athens, he came tothe conclusion that Democracy presupposeseducation. Even when democracies werecomposed only of a few thousand people, voterscould be misled, unless they were educated. Thisancient wisdom is even more true in our time.Those who are trying to give Democracy achance to be practised must realise that withouteducation democracy is not possible.

But experience has proved that educationmeasured in terms of literacy alone does notcreate guarantees for democratic government.What is needed is a different kind of education,an education which will not be imparted with thepurpose of maintaining any given status quo, butwith the sole purpose of making the individualsof a community conscious of their potentialities,help them to think rationally and judge forthemselves, and promote their critical facultiesby applying it to all problems confronting them.No government promotes that kind of education.The purpose of government education is tocreate mental conformism. You have to singpatriotic songs, salute national flags and readpatriotic history as compiled and edited bygovernments, so that all people be merged intoa homogenous collectivity and forget that theyare individuals endowed with certain sovereignfaculties and entitled to be free. Hence there isdanger in the demand that governments provideall education, especially in backward and largelyilliterate countries. Because, Democracy will notbe possible until people are taught to rememberprecisely their critical faculties whichgovernments naturally fear, and apply them forthe administration of their community. And this

is not taught under government-sponsoredsystems of national education. Other ways andmeans must be found to create that atmosphereof intellectual awakening which is theprecondition for democratic practice. Such anintellectual resurgence of the people will takeplace together with the resurrection of theindividual from the grave of the mass. Onlywhen the monster called the masses isdecomposed into its component men andwomen, will an atmosphere be created in whichdemocratic practice becomes possible, in whichthere can be established governments of thepeople and by the people. In such an atmosphere,it will become possible to practise directDemocracy in smaller social groups, because tomake individuals self-reliant, they must be freedfrom the feeling of being helpless cogs in thewheels of the gigantic machines of modernStates, which allow them no other function thanto cast a vote once in several years, and givethem no idea of how governments function, sothat they cannot even effectively help theirgovernment, if they wanted to.

But once the precondition is created, that everycitizen and voter will have a minimum degree ofintelligent understanding and the ability to thinkand judge for himself, then this helplessness andhopelessness of the individuals will disappear;they can create local democracies of their own.The voters need no longer remain scattered likeisolated atoms. They can organise themselves ona local scale into People's Committees, andfunction as local republics, in which directdemocracy is possible. Then at the time ofelections, these people will no longer have tovote for anybody coming from outside; they willnot only discuss in their committees the meritsof candidates presented to them for taking orleaving, but nominate their own candidates fromamong themselves. To create this condition is themost important political activity.


For this work, we need not wait for an election.We select one constituency. 20 or 25 people therewill come to feel the necessity of devising newforms of political practice, because they aredissatisfied with the present state of affairs. Theyresolve to make an experiment. They begin bycreating the precondition for Democracy byspreading education among the people. At a laterstage, it should be possible to call a number oflocal conferences in a constituency and electdelegates from them to a conference of the entireconstituency. And at the election time, when allparties come and offer their candidates, thePeople's Committee may decide to vote for noneof those party candidates, but elect one fromamong themselves as their candidate, and thepeople will vote for him. The person who willbe thus elected and go to the Parliament will notbe responsible to any existing political partymachinery. He will be and remain responsible tohis local Democracy, of which he himself is apart; he will be directly responsible to the peoplewho sent him to the Parliament; he will not haveto act on the behests and discipline of anyextraneous authority, and he will have to reportto and inform his fellow-citizens in hisconstituency about all his actions and theproblems of the wider community, and take hismandate from them alone in all matters and actaccordingly to his best ability and conscience.

On this basis a complete constitutional schemecan be visualised. People's Committees endowedwith specific constitutional rights will becomeintegral units of the State. Instead of atomised,helpless individuals enjoying an illusorysovereignty, groups of individual citizens will bediscussing and planning the affairs of theirlocalities in the framework of similarneighbouring localities, together constituting thecountry for whose administration they will feelthemselves responsible. A growing network ofsuch organised local democracies will be the

instruments through which the electorate canassert its influence from day to day, andultimately exercise a standing control over theState as a whole. The State will not then be ableto become an all-powerful Leviathan, becauseState power will be decentralised, being largelyvested in the local republics. In other words, theState will in this way become coterminous withsociety.

The State is the political organisation of society.As primitive communities grew larger and morecomplex, and various aspects of public life hadto be coordinated, the State was created for thispurpose. The function of the State was the publicadministration of society. Therefore, ademocratic State must be coterminous withsociety. Today, the State has become anabstraction. In the written Constitutions, the Stateis divided in three branches, the legislative, theexecutive and the judiciary. If that is all that theState is, then the States must exist only in thecapitals and nowhere else. The State, supposedto be the political organisation of society as awhole, has come to be completely divorced fromthe life of society, if you think of society in termsof the human beings constituting society. Theindividual has nothing to do with the State, thatis, the political administration of his society. Itexists only in some central place, far away,beyond the reach and influence of the membersof society, and from there makes decisions andimposes its decisions and the people has no sayin them.

In the new society of decentralised democracy,the State will be coterminous with society. Everycitizen will be informed and consulted for hisopinion about the affairs of State, that is, thepolitical administration of his society. Obviouslythis presupposes educated citizens in evergrowing number; but the process itself is the besteducation. Therefore, it must be startedsomewhere, we must not wait until the new

AUGUST 201534

system will be introduced from above aftersomebody's election victory. Working on a localscale, it must prove its worth and spread throughexample, Until the practice, and above all thespirit informing the practice, become more andmore universal, and in the end will place itsstamp on the whole system. Then, for the firsttime, we shall have a democratic State.

The only objection to this plan may be thequestion of time. How long will it take?Assuming it will take fifty years or even ahundred years-the question is irrelevant. What isthe alternative? That is the relevant question. Ifsomebody can suggest another way which willtake less time-say twenty or perhaps only twoyears, and also bring about a democratic society,then the question might arise. But if there is nosuch alternative, the fact that it may take a longtime is no argument against this plan. Thealternatives before us so far are decayed anddefective Democracy or dictatorship. Whoeverbelieves in either of these, does not have to thinkof a new form of political practice. But on theassumption that we are not satisfied with thepresent condition nor with either of thesealternatives, other ways have to be explored.Until a better proposal is made, the alternativeoutlined here should be examined on its ownmerits and for its internal logic.

The question of time is certainly relevantbecause the problems are urgent. But if we makea start with determination, there is no reason whyit should take so very long, or any longer thanany other proposal which holds out any hope ofa desirable result. In India particularly,Democracy is just only beginning its career.Therefore, it can be given a chance by buildingit up from the bottom. In other countries wheredemocratic experiments were made by imposingthem, from the top, it did not work, and nofundamental changes of a democratic nature canbe brought about in this way. But where it was

never even tried, we can give Democracy thechance which it did not get elsewhere, bybeginning from the right end, that is, from theroot, from below.

The first need is to break in our minds with theprejudice that power is the object of all politics,that anybody who wants to participate in politicsand achieve anything at all, must have for hisfirst and foremost object to come to power, onthe assumption that otherwise nothing can bedone, and this is the whole of politics. Partypolitics in our time is based on that assumption.Power must be captured in some way or other,be it by constitutional or by violent means. Allschools of politics, revolutionary and otherwise,have that in common between them: they allmust fight to come to power first before they cando anything in pursuance of their programmes.A party is organised with the object of capturingpower. It is done with the ostensibly plausibleargument that some people know just howsociety should be organised, and therefore thevoters must vote for them so that they come topower and impose the blessings they have inmind from above on the people, who wouldotherwise never even think of those blessings,much less achieve them on their own.

That is why we say that party politics implies thedenial of democracy; it implies that peoplecannot do anything by themselves; it is a denialof the potential intelligence and creativity of allmen, of the sovereignty of the people.Democracy is an empty concept if sovereigntydoes not mean the ability of the people to dothings themselves. If there must always besomebody to do things for them, it means thedenial of the sovereignty of the people, the denialof the creativity and the dignity of man.

Against the prejudice that there can be nopolitics without parties and that parties can donothing without power, there are two


propositions. Firstly, power is not the primaryobject of politics; it is a means and there areother means; and secondly, party politics leadsto concentration of power and hence carries init the germs of the destruction of democracy.Political ends can be achieved without capturingpower. Politics can be practised without a partyorganisation. The object of such a politicalpractice will be to give the sovereign people theopportunity of exercising its sovereignty, topersuade the people not to surrender it by votingfor anybody else expecting him to do the thingsthey want to be done, but to vote for themselves,and do things themselves. To do those thingsbeing the function of government, by doing themthemselves, they will increasingly assume thefunctions of government, and thereby create agovernment of the people and by the people.

This new type of political practice may beapplied everywhere, even in countries where thetraditions of party politics nave taken deep rootsand found at least partial correctives for thedefects of the system. But in a country like Indiawhere Democracy is to be newly introduced andwhere even the appreciation of the democraticway of life is still absent, it seems to be the onlyway to create that appreciation and give to theformalities of parliamentarism a democraticcontent.

If a sufficiently large number of people will fromnow on begin to work with this perspective, withthis new orientation of politics, some tangibleresults can be achieved within a few years. Suchwork can start in one constituency, or in a groupof constituencies anywhere in the country. Forthe first time, those who pose as selfless politicalworkers and servants of the people, who, on thestrength of a false humility, ask to be placed inpower, can be put to the test and the demagogyof vote-catching electioneering exposed.Because such work will mean that these agitators

will never come to power as an organized group.People who work in this way will do everythingthat the best political workers have always done;they will help and teach and educate the people;but they will not ask for their vote. That issomething new. And that will create an entirelynew and different political atmosphere in thecountry.

Let us have no illusion. Working for two years,we may not be able to return even a singlecandidate of People's Committees in the firstelections to come. But even then we shall haveachieved something. In every constituency wherewe shall have worked in this spirit, a group oflocal people will have arisen with somejudgment of their own, whose faculty ofdiscrimination and of thinking out their ownproblems will act as a catalytic agent and radiatetheir spirit far beyond their constituency. Thatspirit will pervade large and larger parts of thecountry, and perhaps in the next electionafterwards, a much larger percentage of theelectorate will vote with discrimination forcandidates of their own choice.

This process will increase in speed and extent,and if the new outlook will attract a sufficientlylarge number of people, there is no reason whyin ten or fifteen years from now, that is, perhapsin the third election in free India, we should nothave created a large number of local republics,on the foundation of which a real Democracycan be built. That is how I visualise a politics forour time. It is not a blueprint of the future. It isa politics for our time, to be practised by ourgeneration, here and now.

(Lecture delivered on February 17, 1949.Compiled in the book 'Politics, Power andParties')

AUGUST 201536

Maniben Kara was a great follower of M N Roy.When Roy arrived at Bombay in 1930 fromEurope, Vasant B Karnik and Maniben Karawere the two labour leaders who received himand put in a secret place to avoid arrest fromBritish police. (Roy had established émigréCommunist Party of India on 17 October1920 inTashkent with Mohd. Shafique Siddiqui as itsSecretary. Roy had also been smugglingcommunist literature and promoting formation ofcommunist groups in various parts of India withthe ostensible purpose of supplanting British rulewith communist methodology. A sedition caseunder section 124-A Indian Penal Code,popularly known as 'Kanpur CommunistConspiracy case' was launched in 1924 in whichmany communist activists like MuzaffarAhmad, Shaukat Usmani, S.A. Dange, NaliniGupta were charged, arrested and wereconvicted. Roy was accused No.1 in that case butcould not be arrested as he was outside India.Large numbers, mostly Muslims, were alsoarrested under Peshawar communist conspiracycases (1922-1927) and later on in Meerutcommunist conspiracy case (1929) wherein alsoRoy had been shown the prominent instigator.Roy had returned to India knowing fully wellthat he would be arrested but that did not deterhim. He was ultimately arrested in 1931 andimprisoned for six years.

Maniben was born in 1905 in Mumbai, in amiddle class family. Maniben Kara studied at St.Columba High School, Gamdevi, Mumbai andsecured a diploma in Social science from theUniversity of Birmingham U.K. Returning toIndia in 1929, she got involved with theIndependence movement, founded Seva Mandirand a printing press. Later when Roy started

MANIBEN KARA (1905-1979)

A Veteran Labour Leader and Committed Radical HumanistN. Innaiah

Independent India, it was Maniben whoundertook to print it. Maniben was influenced byNarayan Malhar Joshi, one of the early leadersof the All India Trade Union Congress, andstarted involving in trade union activism. Sheworked in the slums of Mumbai, the dwellingplace of the labour. She established a Mothers'Club and a Healthcare Centre and spread themessage of hygiene and literacy among the slumdwellers.

She organized workers' unions at Mumbai portand dockyard which later expanded to cover thetextile workers. She joined the All India TradeUnion Congress, and led several labour strikeswhich led to her arrest and solitary confinementin 1932. She continued her activities through thedays of Indian freedom struggle and wasnominated to the Central Legislative Assemblyin 1946 and entrusted with the responsibility ofthe labour ministry. Post Independence, she wasa key member when the Hind Mazdoor Sabhawas formed in 1948 and was also involved withthe All India Railwaymen's Federation andbecame its president. She was also a foundingmember of the International Confederation ofFree Trade Unions (ICFTU) and was involvedwith government committees such as NationalCommittee on the Status of Women and othergovernment initiatives.

Maniben Kara was honoured by the Governmentof India with the civilian award of Padma Shriin 1970. Nine years later, she died at the age of74. Hind Mazdoor Sabha honoured her byestablishing an institute in her name, theManiben Kara Institute (MKI) in 1980. TheWestern Railways Union started a trust in herhonour, the Maniben Kara Foundation and


maintains the Maniben Kara Foundation Hall, inGrant Road area in Mumbai

Maniben visited Hyderabad during 1974 alongwith Gowri Bazaz Malik. I took her to JusticeAvula Sambasivarao and his daughterManjulatha in Malakpet, Hyderabad. Manibenvisited the old city of Hyderabad and curiouslyobserved Hyderabadi culture, antiques etc.

Maniben dreamt of a society that has its basis onequity and justice. Maniben was an eloquentspeaker with command over Gujarati, Marathi,Hindi and English.

On behalf of M N Roy she participated ininternational labour conference in London.

In 1931 she met Lucy Gesler who landed inMumbai on a ship from Switzerland. Manibenrescued her from British spies and took her toM.N. Roy in secret. But soon the Britishgovernment smelt the secret and sent her back.

In Bombay Maniben worked with G D Parekh,Indumati Parekh, J B H Wadia and a galaxy ofother radicals. She did not marry.

Maniben died in 1979.

She is a great inspiration for those who aspirefor a democratic and humanist society.

An Appeal to the ReadersIndian Renaissance Institute has been receiving regular requests from readers, researchscholars, Rationalists and Radical Humanists for complete sets of books written by M.N.Roy. It was not possible to fulfil their demands as most of Roy's writings are out of print.IRI has now decided to publish them but will need financial assistance from friends andwell-wishers as the expenses will be enormous running into lakhs. IRI being a non-profitorganization will not be able to meet the entire expenses on its own. Initially, following 15books have ordered for print: New Humanism; Beyond Communism; Politics, Power andParties; Historical Role of Islam; India's Message; Men I Met; New Orientation; Materialism;Science & Philosophy; Revolution and Counter-revolution in China; India in Transition;Reason, Romanticism and Revolution; Russian Revolution; Selected Works - Four Volumes;Memoirs (Covers period 1915-1923).

Cheques/Bank drafts may be sent in the name of 'INDIAN RENAISSANCE INSTITUTE'to: Mr. N.D. Pancholi, G-3/617, Shalimar Garden Extn. I, Rose Park, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad-201005 (U.P.)

Online donations may be sent to: 'INDIAN RENAISSANCE INSTITUTE' Account No.02070100005296; IFSC Code: UCBA0000207, UCO Bank, Supreme Court Branch, NewDelhi (India)

We make an earnest appeal to you to please donate liberally for the cause of the spirit ofrenaissance and scientific thinking being promoted in the writings of M.N. Roy.

Thanking you.

IRI Executive Body;

Ramesh Awasthi N.D. Pancholi S.C. JainPresident Secretary Treasurer

AUGUST 201538

On August 9, 1925 when the No.8 Down Trainfrom Shahjahanpur to Lucknow was approachingKakori, someone pulled the chain and the trainstopped abruptly. Ashfaqulla got off the secondclass compartment with his friends SachindraBakshi and Rajendra Lahiri. Other friendsjoined.

With pistols in their hands, they shouted,"Travellers, do not be afraid. We arerevolutionaries fighting for freedom. Your lives,money and honour are safe. But take care not topeep out of the train."

They looted the government's treasury moneykept in the guard van to strengthenrevolutionary activities. These revolutionarieswere Ramaprasad Bismil, Rajendra Lahiri,Thakur Roshan Singh, Sachindra Bakshi,Chandra Sekhar Azad, Keshab Chakravarty,Banwari Lal, Mukundi Lal, Manmath NathGupta and Ashfaqulla Khan.

Soon they were caught one by one. Thejudgement was announced on 6th April 1927.Ramaprasad Bismil, Ashfaqulla Khan, RajendraLahiri and Roshan Singh were to be put to death;the others were given life sentences.

9th August 1925

Kakori Train Robbery Case of Treedom StruggleGopal Rathi

The court room resounded with Maulana HasratMohani's ghazal:

Sarfaroshi ki tamanna aaj hamaray dil mehai,

Dekhna hai zor kitna bazuay qatil mein hai

(Our earnest desire is to be beheaded, let us testhow much might the hand of the executionerpossesses).

The four ascended the gallows with a smile ontheir lips and with a prayer that they be bornagain in India so that they could fight againfor the country's freedom. And so theybecame martyrs.

Ashfaq and Ramaprasad were poets just asthey were revolutionaries. Ashfaq had composedpoems mostly in Urdu and a few in Hindi. Hispen names were Varasi and Hazarat. Ashfaqullawas an ideal revolutionary. His devotion to thecause he admired made him the foremost amongthose who gave their lives to win freedom for thecountry. Love for the motherland, clear thinking,courage, firmness and loyalty were embodied inAshfaq to the hilt. He deserves to beremembered and cherished by all Indians for hisnoble qualities.

The Radical Humanist on Website'The Radical Humanist' is now available at http://www.lohiatoday.com/ on Periodicals page,thanks to Manohar Ravela who administers the site on Ram Manohar Lohia, the greatsocialist leader of India.

Mahi Pal Singh

"The people of this country have a right to know every public act, everything, that is donein a public way, by their public functionaries. They are entitled to know the particularsof every public transaction in all its bearing." Justice K K Mathew, former Judge, SupremeCourt of India, (1975)


Obituary:

Mr. N V Brahmam, a prominent Radical Humanist fromAndhra Pradesh died on July 27 at the age of 85 in ChinaGanjam, near Chirala. His book Bible Bandaaram wasbanned by the government and later the Supreme Court liftedthe ban.

Mr. Brahmam was a follower of M N Roy and one of thefirst persons to participate in the Radical Humanist studycamp at Dehra Dun, India during 1948. He was a prolificwriter in Telugu and also edited the Radical Humanist, aTelugu fortnightly from Chirala, Andhra Pradesh.

He is survived by his wife and two sons.

I express my sympathy to the humanist and rationalist friendsat the great loss.

Mr. Siddarth Baksh and Mrs. Vijaya Baksh have alsoexpressed their condolences at the demise of Brahmam.Innaiah

On behalf of the Radical Humanist fraternity I express our deep sorrow at the demise and lossof a veteran Radical Humanist Mr. N. V. Brahmam and also convey our condolences to thebereaved family of Mr. N. V. Brahmam.

Mahi Pal Singh, Editor R.H.

Mr. N V Brahmam,

Search for TruthTruth resides in every human heart, and one has to search for it there, and to be guided by truth asone sees it. But no one has a right to coerce others to act according to his own view of truth.

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

Mr. Ramesh Awasthi elected President of the IRI

Mr. Ramesh Awasthi has been elected by the Board of Trustees as the President ofthe Indian Renaissance Institute in the wake of the sad demise of Mr. SubhankarRay, the former President.

N.D. Pancholi, Secretary, IRI

AUGUST 201540

"While opinions may vary about Aadhar, thegovernment is expected to act in the bestinterests of the people."

The Attorney General's argument questioning theright of Indians to privacy is wrong on twocounts. But worse, it goes against the interestsof the people on every count.

The last ten days have spelt dark times for theright to privacy. On one hand, the DNA ProfilingBill, which may result in a database of sensitivepersonal data with little to prevent its misuse, isbeing tabled in Parliament. On the other hand,the Attorney General took a shocking positionin the Supreme Court of disputing the veryexistence of the right to privacy in the Aadharcase.

Undermining decades of evolution of this rightthrough Supreme Court judgments, MukulRohatgi argued that it is necessary to put togethera constitutional bench to determine whether thecitizens of India have a right to privacy.

He is in the wrong for two reasons. The first istechnical: he is mistaken in his assertion thatM.P. Sharma v Satish Chandra and Kharak Singhv. the State of U.P. created legal doctrine that isno constitutional right to privacy. The secondreason is political. A lawyer holding the AttorneyGeneral's office should consider theappropriateness of using that office and publicresources when denying that Indian citizens haveprivacy rights, which are universally recognisedhuman rights. This is all quite apart from the factthat India has ratified the International Covenanton Civil and Political Rights, whichunequivocally supports the existence of the rightto privacy. The United Nations has gone so faras to create a Special Rapporteur on the right to

Human Rights Section:

A Basic Right is in DangerChinmayi Arun

privacy this year. In the context of USsurveillance of its citizens, the Indiangovernment has acknowledged the existence ofthe right to privacy.

In the Constitution

The two decisions that Mr. Rohatgi referencesdid not raise questions about the right to privacyas a whole. Both confined themselves to thelimited question of whether principles mirroringthe US Fourth Amendment may be read into theIndian Constitution, which is only one elementof the right to privacy. The M.P. Sharma case didthis while ascertaining if there are anyconstitutional limitations to the government'ssearch and seizure of people's homes, personsand effects; and the Kharak Singh case did thisin the context of physical surveillance of 'historysheeters'.

In M.P. Sharma, the judgment states, "When theConstitution makers have thought fit not tosubject such regulation to Constitutionallimitations by recognition of a fundamental rightto privacy, analogous to the American FourthAmendment, we have no justification to importit into a totally different fundamental right bysome process of strained construction" (emphasisadded). This makes it clear that it is not the rightto privacy as a whole that is being referred to.The American Fourth Amendment pertains to the"right of the people to be secure in their persons,houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonablesearches and seizures", not to the right of privacyin its entirety.

The M.P. Sharma judgment goes further to say,"It is to be remembered that searches of the kindwe are concerned with are under the authorityof a Magistrate… When such judicial function


is interposed between the individual and theofficer's authority for search, no circumventionthereby of the fundamental right is to beassumed." This makes it evident that the courtdesisted from intervening because it saw therequirement of a Magistrate's order as safeguardenough.

Similarly, although the judgment in *KharakSingh *contains the sentence with the ominousbeginning "as already pointed out, the right ofprivacy is not a guaranteed right under ourConstitution", this sentence cannot be taken outof context. The 'already pointed out' refers to anearlier portion of the same judgment in which thecourt quotes the U.S. Fourth Amendment, andthen declares that our Constitution does notconfer any 'like constitutional guarantee'. Thismakes it clear that it is the Fourth Amendmenttext specifically that the court was referring to.

The court also belied its own position by findingthat unauthorized intrusion into a person's homeviolates the common law principle of "everyman's house is his castle". The judgmentexplicitly takes the position that Article 21 is arepository for residual personal liberty rights,leaving it open for future reading of such rightsinto Article 21.

It is apparent that the two cases do not rule outa broad constitutional right to privacy. It isalmost impossible to consider the right to privacyin its entirety in a single case since it is a bundleof rights including everything from safeguardsagainst unauthorised collection of personal datato restrictions on intrusion into private spaces.The cases that have emerged from the SupremeCourt over the years make this apparent.

Different elements of privacy rights have beenread into our right to life and our right to freeexpression. We have a right against untrammeledinterception of our communication, and againstdoctors divulging personal medical information.Long before the Constitution or the Constituent

Assembly came into being, the right to privacyof women in purdah was acknowledged bycommon law, which forbade the building ofbalconies above their quarters. We do, therefore,have a rich history of enforcing the right. Likemany other nations, we called it by differentnames and have found it within legal and culturalnorms unique to India.

It is common for lawyers to use every strategythey can to win cases but the Attorney Generalis no ordinary lawyer. S/he is a constitutionalauthority. It is inappropriate for someone of thatstature to argue that the people of India do nothave a right to privacy. Former Attorney General

Niren De was criticised sharply for telling theSupreme Court that it could be helped if the rightto life was violated during Emergency. Mr.Rohatgi's argument is comparable.

This is a democracy, and while opinions mayvary about Aadhar, the government is expectedto act in the best interests of the people. Here,we have the Attorney General stepping awayfrom arguing that the government's actions arein the interests of the people to say that thepeople do not have rights in the first place.

It is not a case of the government's lawyerarguing for the prevalence of the widercommunity's interests over individual rights, ordisputing what is in the interests of the majorityof citizens. Mr. Rohatgi, on behalf of the Indiangovernment, is making an argument that isblatantly against the rights and interests of allcitizens of India.

Interestingly, the argument runs contrary also tothe Minister of Communications and InformationTechnology's statements recognizing citizens'right to privacy in the context of both US andIndian surveillance.

Time to clarify

This incident is about more than an argumentmade in court. It is a serious problem if the

AUGUST 201542

Union government makes statements that respectprivacy and then takes actions that attempt todestroy it. It is also inconsistent for thegovernment to argue internationally that the U.S.has violated Indian citizens' right to privacy andthen to argue before the Supreme Court thatIndian citizens do not have the right to privacy.

Under the circumstances, it is necessary for thegovernment to issue a statement clarifying itsstand, which I hope will consist of some formof support for citizens' privacy rights. Once thisis clear, perhaps the Attorney General couldcontinue the arguments that take his client'swishes into account.

A clear statement from the Prime Minister's

office might also enable other ministries toensure that they embed this right in their policies.This, for example, might have gone a long wayin ensuring that cast-iron privacy safeguardswere added to the DNA Profiling Bill.

Ignoring the right to privacy will not only affectIndia's 'global image' more than any criticaldocumentary does, it will also complicateinternational commercial relations. Who wouldsend their information or employees to a countrythat disregards its residents' right to privacy?

July 31, 2015

*(Chinmayi Arun is Research Director, Centrefor Communication Governance, National LawUniversity, Delhi.)

Supreme Court's decision upholding CBSE's dress codebanning hijab and long sleeves during AIPMT tests

decried by Citizens For Democracy:

Press Release 25th July 2015

Citizens For Democracy (CFD) is shocked to learn that the Supreme Court hasrefused to hear the petition filed by three Muslim girl students and Students IslamicMuslim Organization to grant relaxation to all Muslim girls during AIPMT bypermitting them to wear full sleeved dress with head scarf. The Supreme Court'sview is in total disregard to the constitutional mandates as enshrined in articles 25and 29 read with Article 21 which guarantee freedom of conscience, freedom ofreligious practice, cultural rights of minorities and dignity of the individual. Theremarks of the court, with due respect, exhibits total insensitivity and unconcernfor the religious and cultural beliefs entertained by the Muslim community. Theremarks of the Court also strikes at article 51(A)(f) of our Constitution which callsupon every citizen to consider it as his fundamental duty to value and preserve therich heritage of our composite culture. Wearing 'hijab' and 'full sleeves' is part ofrich heritage of the Muslim culture and to uphold a ban on it, even for few hours,by the Courts tantamount to render such a right nugatory. We therefore call uponthe Court to reconsider and review its observations and decide such a matter inconsonance and in tune without constitutional themes.

N.D. Pancholi, Secretary, CFD

Documents

Founder ESTABLISHED : APRIL 1937 M.N. ROY (Formerly in the ... · ESTABLISHED : APRIL 1937 (Formerly in the name of ‘INDEPENDENT INDIA’ since April 1937 to March 1949) Founder