Dear James Michael, I just now had a fresh reading of text from Ambedkar written in early1940s. I wish to share a few excerpts with you and everybody else here, my comments reserved for another occasion. Thanks,Venu.
"..Most people do not realize that society can practise tyranny and oppression against an individual in a far greater degree than a Government can. The means and scope that are open to society for oppression are more extensive than those that are open to Government, also they are far more effective. What punishment in the penal code is comparable in its magnitude and its severity to excommunication ?" "Indeed he showed a high degree of courage. For let is be remembered that he lived in times when social and religious customs however gross and unmoral were regarded as sacrosanct and when any doubt questioning their divine and moral basis was regarded not merely as heterodoxy but as intolerable blasphemy and sacrilege...." "...The Hindu philosophers had. both their philosophy and their Manu held apart in two hands, the right not knowing what the left had. The Hindu is never troubled by their inconsistency, As to their social system, can things be worst ? The Caste system is in itself a degenerate form of the Chaturvarnya which is the ideal of the Hindu. How can anybody who is not a congenital idiot accept Chaturvarnya as the ideal form of society ? Individually and socially it is a folly and a crime. One class and one class alone to be entitled to education and learning! One class and one class alone to be entitled to arms! One class and one class alone to trade! One class and one class alone to serve! For the Individual the consequences are obvious. Where can you find a learned man who has no means of livelihood who will not degrade his education. ? Where can you find a soldier with no education and culture who will use his arms to conserve and not to destroy ? Where can you find a merchant with nothing but the acquisitive instinct to follow who will not descend to the level of the brute ? Where can you find the servant who is not to acquire education, who is not to own arms and who is not to possess other means of livelihood to be a man as his maker intended him to be ? If baneful to the individual it makes society vulnerable. It is not enough for a social structure to be good for a fair weather. It must be able to weather the storm. Can the Hindu caste system stand the gale and the wind of an aggression ? It is obvious that it cannot....." "...No wonder the Hindu Society had its moral bonds loosened to a dangerous point. The East India Company had in 1819 to pass a Regulation (VII of 1819) to put a stop to this moral degeneracy. The preamble to the Regulation says that women were employed wholesale to entice and take away the wives or female children for purposes of prostitution, and it was common practice among husbands and fathers to desert their families and children. Public conscience there was none, and in the absence of conscience it was futile to expect moral indignation against the social wrongs. Indeed the Brahmins were engaged in defending every wrong for the simple reason that they lived on them. They defended Untouchability which condemned millions to the lot of the helot. They defended caste, they defended female child marriage and they defended enforced widowhood—the two great props of the Caste system. They defended the burning of widows, and they defended the social system of graded inequality with its rule of hypergamy which led the Rajputs to kill in their thousands the daughters that were born to them. What shames ! What wrongs! Can such a society show its face before civilized nations ? Can such a society hope to survive ? Such were the questions which Ranade asked. He concluded that on only one condition it could be saved—namely, rigorous social reform....." "...His (Ranade's) greatest opponents however came from the political school of the intelligentsia. These politicals developed a new thesis. According to that thesis political reform was to have precedence over social reform." "..The thesis caught the imagination of the people. If there was one single cause to which the blocking of the Social Reform movement could be attributed, it was this cry of political reform. The thesis is unsupportable, and I have no doubt that the opponents of Ranade were wrong and in pursuing it did not serve the best interests of the country..". "..The idea of making a gift of fundamental rights to every individual is no doubt very laudable. The question is how to make them effective ? 'The prevalent. view is that once rights are enacted in a law then they are safeguarded. This again is an unwarranted assumption. As experience proves, rights are protected not by law but by the social and moral conscience of society. If social conscience is such that it is prepared to recognizes the rights which law chooses to enact rights will be safe and secure. But if the fundamental rights are opposed by the community, no Law no Parliament, no judiciary can guarantee them in the real sense of the word.." "..The formal framework of democracy is of no value and would indeed be a misfit if there was no social democracy. The politicals never realized that democracy was not a form of Government. It was essentially a form of society. It may not be necessary for a democratic society to be marked by unity, by community of purpose, by loyalty to public ends and by mutuality of sympathy. But it does unmistakably involve two things. The first is an attitude of mind, an attitude of respect and equality towards their fellows. The second is a social organization free from rigid social barriers. Democracy is incompatible and inconsistent with isolation and exclusiveness, resulting in the distinction between the privileged and the unprivileged. Unfortunately, the opponents of Ranade were never able to realize the truth of this fact..." "..Ranade was not only wise but he was also logical. He told his opponents against playing the part of Political Radicals and Social Tones. In clear and unmistakable terms he warned them saying : " You canned be liberal by halves. You cannot be liberal in politics and conservative in religion. The heart and the head must go together. You cannot cultivate your intellect, enrich your mind, enlarge the sphere of your political rights and privileges, and at the same time keep your hearts closed and cramped. It is an idle dream to expect men to remain enchained and enshackled in their own superstition and social evils, while they are struggling hard to win rights and privileges from their rulers. Before long these vain dreamers will find their dreams lost."..." "...Who are the present day politicians with whom Ranade is to be compared ? Ranade was a great politician of his day. He must therefore be compared with the greatest of today. We have on the horizon of India two great men, so big that they could be identified without being named—Gandhi and Jinnah. What sort of a history they will make may be a matter for posterity to tell. For us it is enough that they do indisputably make headlines for the Press. They hold leading strings. One leads the Hindus, the other leads the Muslims. They are the idols and heroes of the hour. I propose to compare them with Ranade. How do they compare with Ranade ? It is necessary to make some observations upon their temperaments and methods with which they have now familiarized us. I can give only my impressions of them, for what they are worth. The first thing that strikes me is that it would be difficult to find two persons who would rival them for their colossal egotism, to whom personal ascendancy is everything and the cause of the country a mere counter on the table. They have made Indian politics a matter of personal feud. Consequences have no terror for them ; indeed they do not occur to them until they happen. When they do happen they either forget the cause, or if they remember it, they overlook it with a complacency which saves them from any remorse. They choose to stand on a pedestal of splendid isolation. They wall themselves off from their equals. They prefer to open themselves to their inferiors. They are very unhappy at and impatient of criticism, but are very happy to be fawned upon by flunkeys. Both have developed a wonderful stagecraft and arrange things in such a way that they are always in the limelight wherever they go. Each of course claims to be supreme. If supremacy was their only claim, it would be a small wonder. In addition to supremacy each claims infallibility for himself. " "Politics in the hands of these two great men have become a competition in extravaganza. If Mr. Gandhi is known as Mahatma, Mr. Jinnah must be known as Qaid-i-Azim. If Gandhi has the Congress, Mr. Jinnah must have the Muslim League. If the Congress has a Working Committee and the All-India Congress Committee, the Muslim League must have its Working Committee and its Council. The session of the Congress must be followed by a session of the League. It the Congress issues a statement the League must also follow suit. If the Congress passes a Resolution of 17,000 words, the Muslim League's Resolution must exceed it by at least a thousand words. If the Congress President has a Press Conference, the Muslim League President must have his. If the Congress must address an: appeal to the United Nations, the Muslim League must not allow itself to be outbidden. When is all this to end? When is there to be a settlement? There are no near prospects. They will not meet, except on preposterous conditions. Jinnah insists that Gandhi should admit that he is a Hindu. Gandhi insists that Jinnah should admit that he is one of the leaders of the Muslims. Never has there been such a deplorable state of bankruptcy of statesmanship as one sees in these two leaders of India. They are making long and interminable speeches, like lawyers whose trade it is to contest everything, concede nothing and talk by the hour. Suggest anything by way of solution for the deadlock to either of them, and it is met by an everlasting " Nay ". Neither will consider a solution of the problems which is not eternal. Between them Indian politics has become "frozen" to use a well-known Banking phrase and no political action is possible.".. (Excerpted from Dr.Ambedkar's Published Work RANADE, GANDHI AND JINNAH This was also an address delivered on the 101st Birthday Celebration of MAHADEO GOVIND RANADE held on the 18th January 1943 in the Gokhale Memorial Hall, Poona First Published: 1943 Reprinted from the first edition of 1943 ) On Nov 11, 9:50 pm, "James Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > To be sure, the entire minority issue is turning out to be the greatest > problem in the country. > The country by definition belongs even to the Hindus (including the dalits), > but the rest of us have to either leave the country or face imminent deaths. > The recent malegaon blasts and the associate rhetoric suggests something > related to this. > I am really curious to know if Ambedkar has anything to offer for > minorities, or is he a figure completely apporiated/associated with the > dalit cause. > Do we have anything related to this in Ambedkar? > I am sure Gandhi has, and his standing legacy is coming to an end. > The people who killed him, are the ones behind the blasts. > > 2008/11/11 Venugopalan K M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > *Journalistic Fascism* > > > *By Yoginder Sikand* > > > 10 November, 2008 > > *Countercurrents.org* > > > *Ajit Sahi is an investigative reporter with the New Delhi-based Tehelka > > magazine. He recently published several startling reports clearly indicating > > that scores of innocent Muslims, including some former members or associates > > of the banned Students' Islamic Movement of India (SIMI), across the country > > have been falsely implicated by the police, intelligence agencies and the > > media as being behind various terror attacks. In this interview with > > Yoginder Sikand, he talks about how influential sections of the Indian media > > are playing a major role in demonizing Muslims today. * > > > *Q: You have been associated with the media for several years now. How do > > you see the way in which the so-called 'mainstream' Indian media responds to > > or projects Muslims and Islam, particularly in the context of the recent > > spate of bomb attacks, in which the media, despite the absence of evidence, > > has blamed Muslims and Muslim organizations for?* > > > A: I think the media does not want to recognize or admit it, but it sees > > these issues from basically a Hindu, or at least a non-Muslim, point of > > view. I tell my media friends that if they were Muslims they would not > > believe any of this media propaganda about Indian Muslims taking to > > terrorism, or at least would be greatly suspicious of these claims, because > > these claims are largely dubious and false. They typically answer is, 'No, > > we are secular, liberal and progressive. We are not communal'. But I do not > > agree, of course. I think the way they respond necessarily indicates that > > they are influenced by their not being Muslim. A hidden anti-Muslim bias > > pervades the media, although media persons who like to call themselves > > secular and liberal would hate to admit this. This is reflected, for > > instance, in the fact that in most cases of Muslims arrested on grounds of > > terrorism, all that we have are 'confessions' before the police, which are > > not admissible as evidence before courts, because obviously such > > 'confessions' are often false and procured after brutal torture. But the > > media simply projects these statements as supposed evidence, and then weaves > > this picture of Muslims as terrorists. > > > At the same time, there is a distinct lack of willingness in large sections > > of the media to recognize the very obvious and very deadly fact of terrorism > > being engaged in by people linked to the Hindutva camp. Thus, for instance, > > there is huge evidence against Narendra Modi of being responsible for the > > massacre of Muslims in 2002, and if it was somewhere else in the world Modi > > would have been tried as a criminal, and would probably have been sentenced > > to death or a hundred years in prison. (For the record, I am opposed to > > capital punishment.) I mean, he should be tried under international criminal > > law and charged with 'ethnic cleansing', but, of course, our supine, > > so-called 'mainstream' media is not demanding this. You really can't expect > > anything else from India's week-kneed so-called intellectuals. They do not > > have the guts to correctly describe Hindutva as it really is—as fascism, in > > the same league as Nazism. > > > *Q: How do you explain what you have referred to as the deep and pervasive > > anti-Muslim bias in large sections of the Indian media?* > > > A: One reason for this, of course, is that there are very few Muslims in > > the so-called 'mainstream' media, even in those newspapers, magazines and TV > > channels that see themselves as 'progressive' or 'liberal'. Now, some might > > say that this is because there are relatively very few well-educated or > > well-qualified Muslims, but I don't buy that argument. Surely, if you have a > > staff of a hundred people it should not be difficult to find twelve or > > fourteen educated Muslims to employ to reflect the proportion of Muslims in > > the Indian population. But I would be surprised if any of the so-called > > 'mainstream' papers have even half that proportion of Muslims among their > > staff. > > > The argument is also often made that ensuring a proper representation of > > the Muslims or the marginalized castes; the Dalits and the Adivasis, in the > > media would impact on the media's quality or merit. I think this cry about > > merit is the biggest hoax. After all, we all know that appointments in > > government services and even so often in the private sector are often not > > made on the basis of any sort of merit at all. Give me another story! I'd > > rather believe that the British are going to come back to rule India than > > swallow the claim that appointments are always made on the basis of merit. > > > In India, merit basically has come to stand for those who can speak and > > write in English. Many of these so-called 'meritorious' people in the media > > have come straight out of universities or have done some media course in > > some Western institute. They have little idea of the Indian society. Because > > they are the English-speaking, they rarely have an insider's connect with > > the community they report on. In fact, they take pride in that fact and in > > distancing themselves from 'ordinary' people. They think that not having > > anything to do with non-English-speaking Indians sets them in a position to > > comment on our society. I think this is really despicable and tragic. And > > they style themselves as 'liberal' and 'unprejudiced', and claim to be > > 'objective' about marginalized groups, about Muslims or Adivasis or Dalits, > > but actually have deep-rooted prejudices about them, which many of them do > > not even realize they have. These subconscious biases are often much more > > dangerous than consciously held prejudices. > > > Let me cite a personal instance. After I had published some reports in > > Tehelka exposing the lies of the media and the police about several innocent > > Muslims, some of who are said to have been associated with SIMI, and who had > > been wrongly branded as 'terrorists', the TV channel NDTV24x7 did a half > > hour programme on SIMI. They interviewed, among others, Praveen Swami, who > > works for the Hindu, and me. They used one sound bite of mine where I said > > that I had seen the judgments of the previous three tribunals on SIMI and > > had found them to be bad judgments, because they lacked evidence and had > > based their opinion on statements made by the accused before the police, > > which is not admissible as evidence in a court of law. After my sound bite, > > they showed Praveen Swami who justified the ban on SIMI saying something to > > the effect that terrorist outfits are not corporate organizations that hold > > board meetings and pass resolutions authorizing terror attacks, and so > > obviously would be careful not to leave any evidence. He also suggested that > > India should modify the law so that statements given to the police is > > accepted as evidence. > > > After the programme was broadcast, I sent an SMS to the producer who had > > recorded my interview. I drew her attention to Praveen Swami's long-standing > > record as virtually a spokesman for the Intelligence Bureau. I mean, I would > > not even call him a journalist. He is, at best, an agent of the state, > > simply parroting the statements of the police and the intelligence bureau. > > That's copying-and-pasting, not serious journalism. I also wrote this NDTV > > producer that she ought to be careful before advocating that confessions > > made to the police be accepted as evidence, for that would unleash mayhem in > > the country. After all, we all know how false statements are often forcibly > > procured by the police from innocent people after brutally torturing them. > > > This NDTV producer replied to me, saying that like all complex questions, > > this one, too, had two sides to it, and so she had used Praveen Swami's > > statement to counter my view. Now I fiercely respect her and my editorial > > independence, but talking about another side to a story about innocent > > people being wrongly targeted and branded as 'terrorists' would be like > > seeking to portray the 'other' side to the massacre of innocent people in > > Jallianwala Bagh by interviewing the man behind it, General Dyer. > > > Now, mind you, this is the case with a serious TV channel like NDTV24x7, > > not some irrational, jingoistic channel like India TV or Aj Tak or IBN7. And > > the programme was sending out subtle messages that clearly appeared to back > > Praveen Swami's position, with the voiceover commentary on terrorism being > > accompanied by images of madrasas, bearded men and burkha-clad women that > > seemed to aim at creating and reinforcing the image of Muslims as > > terrorists. Now, this is just one example of a huge number of such > > portrayals of Muslims in the media. > > > *Q: How do you think this sort of portrayal of Muslims in the media can be > > countered? * > > > A: The media is a reflection of the middle class of any country. It is the > > middle class that inhabits the media. So, unless the dominant views in a > > middle class change, the media cannot change substantially. People have to > > be sensitized to realities, but > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
