Thanks Mr. Venu. But I am not sure what I should glean out of these postings. I will wait for your comments to follow. James.
2008/11/13 venukm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > 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 » > > > -- James Michael --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
