[sacw] SACW | 3 Feb. 03

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire | February 3, 2003

#1. The Mahatma that failed? (Mushirul Hasan)
#2. Perplexed Polity, Bewildered Society (Ajay K. Mehra)
#3. [India's] bankrupt [Foreign] policy (Praful Bidwai)
[See also] Vajpayee Govt. to blame for poor relations with neighbours: Guj=
ral
#4. Harivansh Rai Bachchan : A Eulogy (I.K.Shukla)
[See also] OBITUARY : The romantic rebel (Rajendra Sharma )

__________________________

#1.

The Hindu
Monday, Feb 03, 2003
Opinion - Leader Page Articles

The Mahatma that failed?

By Mushirul Hasan

Finding scapegoats in history will deepen fissures, and, in the long=20
run, weaken the India that belongs to all of us.

BEVERLEY NICHOLOS, a trenchant critic of our freedom struggle, had=20
written in 1944 that the incense will continue to drift around=20
Mahatma Gandhi, the halo will be polished brighter and brighter by=20
millions of adorning hands, and when eventually he departs from this=20
world, it is a safe bet that he will be canonised and sit for ever=20
enshrined among the myriad gods of the Hindu pantheon.

Nothing of the kind has happened. Tokenism apart, the nation has=20
failed to pay respect to its chief benefactor. History textbooks that=20
have been `rewritten' under the BJP dispensation do not detail his=20
extraordinary role. Nor do they mention his assassination at the=20
hands of a religious fanatic. The HRD Ministry doles out huge sums of=20
money to support and sustain obsolete ideas and institutions, but=20
there is no serious effort to popularise Gandhian studies that would=20
also, in turn, illuminate facets of our nationalist struggle. In=20
short, Gandhi is either despised or wilfully ignored. This neglect,=20
for which all previous Governments are equally responsible, has meant=20
that Gandhi has ceased to appeal to the young, who are blissfully=20
unaware of his role, or to the Congress, the party he galvanised in=20
the 1920s.

There are several ways of forming an opinion of a man. One way is to=20
place oneself in the position of the person one is trying to judge;=20
the other is to weigh up statements of importance made by the person=20
one is judging - statements made when the person, speaking or=20
writing, had every opportunity of himself judging the gravity of the=20
occasion. K.S. Sudarshan, RSS' high priest, does neither. While=20
Nathuram Godse, the Mahatma's assassin, is dismissed as a mere=20
`insane person' and not as a criminal monster, the RSS chief lists=20
his litany of complaints against Mahatma Gandhi and his political=20
heir, Jawaharlal Nehru. His observations, just a day before January=20
30, the traditional day of mourning for the `Father of the Nation',=20
must trigger a serious discussion.

In some ways, Mr. Sudarshan's position is consistent with his=20
predecessor's long-standing hostility towards Gandhi and Nehru. They=20
were anathema because of their stout opposition to Hindutva and the=20
RSS mission to create a Hindu Rashtra. They were protagonists of a=20
unified India, even though they agreed to the country's Partition,=20
whereas the RSS mobilisation campaigns in the 1940s led, inevitably,=20
to the creation of a `Hindu' India and a `Muslim' India. Democracy=20
and secularism, though interpreted differently by Gandhi and Nehru,=20
were the cornerstone of their philosophy; the RSS worldview ran=20
contrary to these principles. Economic and social justice was central=20
to the concerns of Gandhi and Nehru, whereas the RSS was wedded to a=20
hierarchical Hindu society. Finally, in the aftermath of Partition,=20
the Hindu right strongly objected to the sledgehammer efforts of the=20
Mahatma and Nehru to change the social fabric of Hindu society, their=20
lenient policy towards Pakistan and their undue tenderness for the=20
minorities.

These factors may have contributed to Gandhi's assassination. He had=20
a premonition that it was coming, especially after the January 20,=20
1948, bomb explosion at his prayer meeting in New Delhi. He told=20
Manubehn: "If I am to die by the bullet of a mad man, I must do so=20
smiling, God must be in my heart and on my lips. And if anything=20
happens, you are not to shed a single tear." On the morning of the=20
30th, as Manu was preparing some throat lozenges for the night,=20
Gandhi chided her, "Who knows what is going to happen before=20
nightfall or even whether I shall be alive? If at night I am still=20
alive you can easily prepare some then."

Given the climate of hostility created by Gandhi's detractors,=20
particularly in the rank and file of the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha,=20
assassination was the death that Gandhi expected. Indeed, he=20
believed, as some writers have argued, that death at the hands of an=20
assassin would validate his life's work. Nirmal Kumar Bose explores=20
this idea in "My Days with Gandhi". This is what he writes: "But that=20
martyrdom which brought his life to a finale which is comparable to=20
the Greek tragedies acted as the touchstone which gave new meaning=20
and new significance to the words which had so long sounded=20
commonplace or strange in our heedless ears... India is blessed=20
because she gave birth to one who became Gandhi, and perhaps, blessed=20
again that, by dealing him the blow of death, we endowed his life=20
with an added radiance which shall enrich the heritage of humankind=20
in all ages to come."

Gandhi, the stormy petrel, was no Prophet. He erred in his judgments=20
in the complicated puzzle of India. Yes, he often made wrong choices.=20
Yes, his ideas on social reforms and economic justice were out of=20
tune with his own party, as also with other political formations that=20
shared his passion for freedom from colonial rule. Yes, his support=20
to the Khilafat cause was based on misplaced assumption, and his=20
views on Hindu-Muslim unity failed to understand the dynamics of the=20
politics of representation. Impatient with constitutionalism, he=20
could not comprehend that the Muslim League movement ultimately=20
derived its appeal and strength by raising the spectre of `Hindu'=20
domination in the power structures. Cultural fears and religious=20
anxieties were, in fact, secondary to the ideology of Muslim=20
nationalism.

Yet, Gandhi, or for that matter any individual or a single group,=20
cannot be held responsible for the country's `vivisection'. For one,=20
Gandhi could not single-handedly negotiate an agreement with an=20
obdurate and ill-advised Muslim leadership without incurring the=20
hostility of his Congress colleagues, the Hindu Mahasabha and the=20
RSS. They ensured, as G.B. Pant told Mountbatten, the last British=20
Viceroy, that Gandhi did not yield to M.A. Jinnah's demands. Aided by=20
G.D. Birla, industrialist, their pressure on Gandhi not to negotiate=20
with the Muslim League had increased from the mid-1940s.

Second, we must reckon with Gandhi's diminishing influence in the=20
Congress. He became `a spent bullet', and `a back number'. No one=20
listened to him, he told a prayer meeting on April 1, 1947. "Where is=20
the Congress today? It is disintegrating. I am crying in the=20
wilderness." When Pyarelal joined Gandhi in December 1947, he found=20
him isolated from the surroundings and from every one of his=20
colleagues.

How, then, could the Mahatma prevent Partition and the catastrophe=20
that followed? What he could do best was to pacify enraged mobs.=20
Never before had a political leader taken so bold an initiative to=20
provide the healing touch not just to the people in Noakhali but to=20
the warring groups across the vast subcontinent as well. And yet,=20
never before did so earnest an effort achieve so little. After=20
Noakhali, Gandhi continued to be caught up in the whirlpool of=20
hatred, anger and violence.

Partition occurred for a variety of reasons, mostly flowing from the=20
outbreak of World War II in 1939 and the ensuing complex but=20
predictable realignment of forces. At the crossroads of polarisation,=20
India became a fertile ground for the idea of a divided India to=20
nurture. Most found, willy-nilly, Partition as a way out of the=20
impasse. Vallabhbhai Patel had said: "Frankly speaking, we all hate=20
it, but at the same time we see no way out of it."

It will take time for the scars of Partition to heal. But the agony=20
this tragic human event caused could be lessened by salvaging the=20
pre-Partition composite traditions that have played such a large part=20
in keeping India united. Existing divisions must not be accentuated=20
by invoking Partition; if anything, one of the lessons we must learn=20
from Partition is to eschew religious mobilisation, and, instead,=20
create spaces for mixed secular symbols to gain roots in our society.=20
Finding scapegoats in history will deepen fissures, and, in the long=20
run, weaken the India that belongs to all of us. A secular state and=20
society are, therefore, the sole guarantors of the nation's peace,=20
strength and progress.

To Mr. Sudarshan I can only say that, both as an event and memory,=20
Partition has to be interpreted and explained afresh in order to=20
remove widely held misconceptions. This is both a challenge and a=20
necessity, and it is indeed a theme where the historian's craft must=20
be used deftly.

______

#2.

Mainstream
VOL XLI No 6, January 25, 2003
REPUBLIC DAY 2003

Perplexed Polity, Bewildered Society
AJAY K. MEHRA

Republic Day for India should not be mere commemoration of an event=20
that took place 53 years ago. It is celebration of the beginnings of=20
a republican government and constitutionalism in a society which was=20
decolonised after two centuries of subjugation, had resolved to forge=20
its plurality into a rainbow nation despite mass poverty, illiteracy=20
and other such handicaps and a time to count the achievements and=20
introspect on failures. It is a time to remind ourselves that=20
justice, liberty, equality, fraternity, dignity of the individual;=20
all the universal democratic values were pledged for the Indian=20
republic and its people and it is the existence of these values so=20
far, to whatever extent they have been observed and practiced by=20
leaders, citizens and communities, that has sustained Indian=20
democracy for over five and a half decades. Obviously, the strength=20
of the republic and democracy would lie in strengthening these=20
values, in theory and practice.

However, as has happened for several years now, India's 53rd Republic=20
Day would also be reduced to mere ritualism - an address to the=20
nation by the President of India detailing India's achievements,=20
perhaps focusing on science and technology this time and that too=20
relating mostly to weapons (in other words tools and instruments of=20
destruction, though flaunted as symbols of security and nationalism),=20
an impressive parade by the columns of security forces, cultural=20
programmes and, of course, official reception for the capital's=20
elite. Coming after the tragedy of communal carnage in Gujarat and=20
an Assembly election which brought out darker side of democratic=20
culture, irrespective of the outcome, on Republic Day 2003 India=20
should introspect.

Because political discourse in (and on) India for most of 2002, since=20
tragic Godhra incident and following savage communal riots=20
(unprecedented in scale and brutality since partition), has been=20
dominated by Gujarat, and it is likely to dominate 2003 as well, this=20
is an appropriate point of departure to reflect on Indian republic.=20
However, conceptualising on Indian polity in the aftermath of events=20
in Gujarat appears perplexing. For, belligerent rejoicing of the=20
Hindu nationalists and lament of the secularists, leave several=20
democratic and constitutional questions concerning Indian polity and=20
society unstated and unanswered. We need to put political process,=20
constitutional practices and civic life in India under microscope to=20
look for anomalies within and grope for lasting answers.
The ambiguity in the discourse arises because the election results=20
were outcome of a democratic process, mirroring political mood of a=20
majority of the electorate exercising their franchise on that fateful=20
day. Obviously, hairsplitting on what percentage supported the=20
Hindutva agenda and who cut into whose vote share is only of academic=20
value. 'Had the secularist forces united=8A' brings back the memories=20
of the futile lament on Congress dominated elections since=20
independence - 'Had the non-Congress, or the opposition, parties=20
united=8A'. Similarly, the call for uniting 'secularist' forces,=20
projected to be more than half of the Gujarat electorate (which are=20
taken to include all the votes that were polled to the non-BJP=20
parties and those who did not vote), or for legally unseating elected=20
'communalist' forces, as reflected in some of the analyses in the=20
media [1], betrays avoidable desperation, which would strengthen=20
rather than weaken the forces they strive to neutralise. For, the=20
history of the Indian political process since independence suggests=20
that neither such brittle unity has ever been achieved, nor has the=20
electoral process been cleansed enough to seek universal judicial=20
redress on the ground of provocative communal campaign.

ONE of the candid questions of real long-term political import is=20
that in the run up to this fateful elections, and following it, the=20
communal flare up has been justified and legitimised not only by the=20
VHP and other members of the Sangh Parivar, but also by the BJP, a=20
political party competing for legitimate democratic political power=20
under the Constitution of India [2.]. Tragically, the parivar's=20
position has been endorsed in silence by the NDA allies, obviously=20
for enjoying two more years in office, sporadic individual=20
disagreements notwithstanding. Unfortunately, the Congress, whose=20
soft Hindutva since the 1980s legitimised the Sangh brand of=20
politics, played the same game, refusing to learn from the past. As=20
a consequence, it is not only the Congress which has paid a heavy=20
price by being reduced to heaps, it is Indian democracy, secularist=20
ideals embedded in the Constitution of India and the Indian society,=20
which would be bearing the brunt of these developments in the long=20
run. This gives a gloomy picture of the party system, the basic=20
instrument of representative politics under the Indian republic.
That justification, defence, support and endorsement of the riot and=20
rioters have come from such constitutional functionaries as Chief=20
Minister of the State (who represents a State beyond partisanship),=20
Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister of India (who are expected=20
to be statesmen more than politicians) and the entire Council of=20
Minister is of equally grave consequence for the world's largest=20
democracy and the socio-cultural mosaic of one billion people they=20
represent. The right statements of anguish made for international=20
consumption are tarnished by 'if Godhra had not happened' or 'if=20
Godhra was "sufficiently" condemned' (sufficiency' to be determined=20
by self-styled champions of the majority), which indeed is=20
abdication, nay abuse, of constitutional authority and=20
responsibility. As if these certifications were not enough, Prime=20
Minister and Deputy Prime Minister of India, traveled to Gandhinagar=20
for Mr. Narendra Modi's public swearing in, an avoidable extravaganza=20
at public cost, demeaning the chairs they adorn.

Strong impartial political institutions and respect for rule of law=20
ensuring equality before law and equal protection of law to all, the=20
two of the crucial pillars on which edifice of a democratic polity=20
and constitutionalism rests, have been severely undermined. The=20
partisan and sectarian politics played by the offices of PM, DPM, CM=20
and Governor, have politicised and communalised the police,=20
bureaucracy, the entire state machinery and even the lower judiciary,=20
compelling them to function contravening the rule of law. These=20
institutions of the Indian state across the length and breadth of the=20
country are already afflicted with corruption and inefficiency due to=20
years of misuse and neglect. Several commissions of inquiry have=20
indicted the police for partisan role during communal riots.=20
Obviously, when partisan behaviour is sanctified by explicit verbal=20
instructions from a constitutional functionary and carried out in=20
direct supervision, the abuse of legal powers would certainly be=20
frequent, indiscriminate and licentious. Especially because=20
political pronouncements during the riots, during and since the=20
elections have sent strong messages that the forces of Hindutva have=20
to be aided and protected. Resulting indiscretions in day-to-day=20
life would not take place only after ascertaining religion of the=20
citizens! Sadly, it is the Ayodhya movement, which VHP now claims=20
BJP has politically hijacked, and appalling developments that have=20
followed to date, have already resulted in distortions of the=20
judicial process, straining the functioning of the entire criminal=20
justice system. We must recall in this context the fate of the=20
Ayodhya case in which an array of India's constitutional=20
functionaries are accused. Can we under the circumstances expect=20
political process to remain truly democratic and the spirit of the=20
Indian Constitution survive?

PM's assertion, the softest face BJP can flaunt, that=20
secularism redefined by the BJP is the 'genuine' one, contains=20
dangerous portents for India both politically and socially. For,=20
ever since the BJP invented pseudo-secularism and attacked the=20
Congress and Left brands of secularism, it has not defined what it=20
means by 'real' secularism. Since all the BJP leaders fudge the=20
issue, politically their assertions of majoritarianism legitimize=20
hate and violence not only against minorities and dissenters, but=20
also as a part of the Indian political culture. That Thakerays and=20
Togadiyas of the world can go around preaching violence and=20
pronouncing death sentences over the print and visual mediae against=20
citizens of democratic India and not only get away with it, but they=20
continue to be the mainstay of the ruling party's support system,=20
must be taken seriously for two reasons - it thumb-noses the=20
constitution and rule of law in the country; and it creates a=20
political culture of violence that would prove disastrous for the=20
nation, howsoever the Bharat rashtra is defined and designed in=20
future.

We must in this context recall the discourse unleashed on the=20
review of the Constitution. Though real intentions behind the=20
discourse and move are still unclear, it was in a way reflection of=20
desperation of the BJP with the current constitutional arrangements=20
and practices [3.]. The report produced by the Committee on=20
Constitutional Review has failed to inspire meaningful debate on=20
constitutional reforms. Further, at the highest level the BJP has=20
begun to question, without any engagement on the issue by its=20
coalition partners, the basic symbols of the Indian republic. If the=20
Deputy Prime Minister of India questions the symbols used in the=20
national flag with a sectarian logic [4.], it cannot be taken=20
lightly. Similarly, if the Prime Minister of India plays down the=20
importance of colours of the national flag, which signify and=20
symbolise various aspects of the Indian nation, he is indicating=20
imperative for a major change in India's democratic, constitutional=20
and republican philosophy [5.]. Obviously, having failed to bring=20
about this change through the debate on the review of the=20
Constitution, the parivar is gearing up to employ any means. The=20
consequence of the process irrespective of the result are unlikely to=20
be salutary even for them, but that is irrelevant question for the=20
Hindutva brigade in a hurry.

THIS leads us to the critical question regarding societal dimension=20
of the Indian democracy. A democratic society is an essential=20
prerequisite of a democratic polity. The Indian democracy, as=20
conceived through the Constitution of India and as pieced together=20
during the next couple of decades, strived to build a democratic=20
society through universal rights to citizens irrespective of sex,=20
race, religion, community or status, creating special opportunities=20
for the socially and economically disadvantaged and by encouraging=20
widespread political participation. The parivar's notion of Hindu=20
rashtra, with second-class status for and legitimised violence=20
against religious minorities and dissenting voices, scuttle the=20
process of democratisation of Indian society and aggravate fissures=20
and frictions beyond the majority-minority framework they are=20
emphasising. In seeking to roadroll and homogenize multi-cultural=20
syncretic social fabric, it threatens basic tenets of Indian=20
democracy, because it not only seeks to minoritize the minorities,=20
the prescriptive 'cultural nationalism' has the potential to invent=20
minorities, as it will prescribe a rigid Hindutva and downplay the=20
freedom of cultural and religious traditions that led to origins of=20
innumerable sects. For this reason cultural policing resorted to by=20
the lumpen elements in the parivar on various occasions deserves to=20
be taken seriously, especially since it has never been condemned by=20
any senior leader of the party. As the BJP gets stronger, in case it=20
does, these incidents too may rise, disturbing harmony in society and=20
social base of democracy.

The widespread unease and anxiety among the 'liberals' and=20
'Leftists' generated by the BJP's spectacular victory in Gujarat on a=20
blatant communal and sectarian plank and consequent shrill rhetoric=20
and muscle flexing by the parivar has raised questions whether the=20
Hindu majoritarian plank will withstand tests of political time and=20
of India's uneven social space. The answer is not easy. However,=20
there are many more questions. Has Gujarat contaminated social=20
consciousness across the country to create a hindutva wave? Will the=20
parivar resort to violence in future elections? Will the Congress be=20
able to rediscover its ideological roots and reinvent its=20
organisational and ideological vigour to contest the parivar? Will=20
the secular forces be able to create a common political platform?=20
Indeed, the parivar's desire to repeat the Gujarat experiment in=20
coming Assembly elections cannot be dismissed, cacophony of=20
contradictions emanating from the BJP notwithstanding. That Mr.=20
Vajpayee, despite his ritualistic annual musings, is unlikely to=20
change the sectarian agenda of his party is clear. For, since his=20
ambiguous 'Gandhian socialism' failed to give the BJP a centrist=20
space it sought after the 1980 reincarnation and the party was=20
overtaken by Mr. Advani's shrill support for the Ayodhya movement,=20
his liberal self has always bowed before his swayamsevak. Moreover,=20
ever since Advani's aggressive hindutva put a modernist Rajiv Gandhi=20
on the defensive, stumped V. P. Singh and successfully built a=20
workable coalition to rule India in a little over a decade, the BJP's=20
hopes have naturally lain with its Hindu nationalist plank. That=20
most non-left national and regional parties and leaders have aligned=20
with it purely for political power, has strengthen the BJP.

Naturally, this leaves the Congress as the main political rival to=20
the hindutva forces, which must surmount three disadvantages -=20
ideological (soft Hindutva will not sell), organisational (both at=20
social and structural levels) and the leadership (which has to be=20
rooted to the ground). Gujarat elections have broken the myth of=20
electoral success by default. The Congress has no option but to=20
rebuild itself to take emerging political challenges head on and=20
reestablish its credibility.
The major initiative, however, lies with the society and civil=20
society institutions. The Indian society is hard put to resolve the=20
dilemma arising out of the aggressive campaign elevating sectarianism=20
with nationalism. The disarray in the party system has added=20
credibility to the well-oiled machinery of the Sangh Parivar. The=20
civil society institutions, therefore, have to work hard to go beyond=20
condemnation of the Sangh Parivar to convince people of the dangers=20
of sectarianism to civil society.

(The writer is Director, Centre for Public Affairs, Noida, U.P.)

Footnotes:

[1.] Praful Bidwai, 'Fight Hindutva Head On', The Hindustan Times,=20
December 27, 2002, p. 10.
[2.] A parallel has been drawn to Rajiv Gandhi's justification of=20
1984 anti-Sikh riots to defend BJP top leadership's defence of=20
Gujarat following Godhra. The riots in 1984 were indefensible by any=20
standards of constitutional, political, legal and civil society=20
norms. Obviously, Gujarat riots are equally, if not more,=20
condemnable, Godhra or no Godhra, and its defence by a political=20
party and leaders occupying constitutional legitimacy and position is=20
dangerous and alarming.
[3.] See my "Discourse on Constitutional Change", Mainstream, Annual=20
No., December 25, 1999, pp. 95-98 and "Reviewing the Constitution",=20
Mainstream, Republic Day Special, January 29, 2000, pp. 13-16.
[4.] Mr. LK Advani, questioned the use of Ashok Chakra, which he=20
considers of Buddhist origin, in the national flag.
[5.] Commenting on the charges of 'saffronisation' of education=20
leveled on HRD minister M M Joshi on Mr. Joshi's birthday celebration=20
(titled as 100 hues) on January 5, 2003, the Prime Minister said to=20
the applause of 2000 plus audience, 'Joshiji shiksha ko bhagwa nahin=20
karenge to kya hara karenge?' (If Joshiji should not make education=20
saffron, then should he make it green?). Though it could be=20
downplayed as a light remark on the spur of the moment, but coming=20
from a constitutional functionary, occupying the highest executive=20
position and regarded as the leader of the nation, it is pointer to=20
grave portents.

_____

#3.

Frontline,
February 01 - 14, 2003
COLUMN

A bankrupt [Foreign] policy

PRAFUL BIDWAI

The BJP's antipathy towards Muslims and Pakistan is driving India's=20
foreign policy towards ever-greater bankruptcy; this must be resisted=20
to promote a rich multifocal, supra-regional thrust.
http://www.flonnet.com/fl2003/stories/20030214003510800.htm

o o o o

[ See Related Report]

The Hindu
Monday, Feb 03, 2003

Vajpayee Govt. to blame for poor relations with neighbours: Gujral

By Our Special Correspondent

NEW DELHI FEB. 2. While arguing in favour of restoring=20
people-to-people contacts between India and Pakistan, the former=20
Prime Minister, I.K. Gujral, today expressed the hope that such=20
informal relations would help in normalising Indo-Pak. ties.

Rapping the Vajpayee Government for what he called was a "sharp=20
deterioration'' in India's relations with its neighbours like=20
Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka, Mr. Gujral wondered what kind of=20
future was being shaped up by the BJP-led coalition regime for the=20
country.

Addressing the concluding session of the "People's Integration=20
Council'' here, he said: "Our neighbours are like our own brothers.=20
We enjoy age-old relations with them on the basis of language,=20
religion, emotion and history. If we cannot have good relations with=20
our neighbours, what kind of ties will we have with other nations?''

On India's friendship and close ties with the U.S., he said that=20
friendly Indo-U.S. ties were a "different priority'' which should not=20
prevent people-to-people contacts with Pakistan from being restored.

While admitting that the military dictatorship in Islamabad had a=20
"vested interest'' in keeping the ties with New Delhi always on the=20
boil as 60 per cent of that country's budget was meant only for=20
defence purposes, Mr. Gujral said that the common people in both the=20
countries yearned for peace and normal relations.

He said the Government should make all out efforts to strengthen=20
relations with Dhaka as it was India that had played a pivotal role=20
in liberating Bangladesh even at the cost of the lives of its men in=20
uniform.

"What happened to Nepal? It is a Hindu nation and even our relations=20
with it are not as good as they should have been. In Sri Lanka, you=20
have a nation from a far-flung part of the world working for peace in=20
the island nation. What kind of India are we building for the=20
future,'' he asked.

Emphasising the need to bind the nation together through secular and=20
democratic values, Mr. Gujral said India's diverse cultural and=20
religious heritage had played a key role in keeping the people=20
together.

In his opinion, secularism remained a "positive factor'' - a tool of=20
taking the nation to a scientific age - and was imbued with a modern=20
outlook to modernise the nation. "Building a modern, scientific=20
nation is a commitment given in the Constitution. Only backward=20
societies have divisive tendencies,'' he told the delegates.

While asserting that elections were a salient feature of a vibrant=20
democracy, Mr. Gujral said that democracy itself could not be either=20
"saffron, green or blue.''

Pledging the support of the Rashtriya Janata Dal to the initiative=20
taken by the `People's Integration Council' in maintaining national=20
unity, the party MP, Raghuvansh Prasad Singh, cautioned against=20
dangers posed by regional disparities and communal forces.

The Congress spokesman, Jaipal Reddy, stressed on three crucial=20
factors - economic growth, social justice and effective governance -=20
for taking the country ahead on the path of development and harmony.

Other speakers included the Lok Janshakti leader, Ram Vilas Paswan,=20
the Samajwadi Party leader, Amar Singh, and the CPI(M) leader from=20
Jammu and Kashmir, Yusuf Tarigami.

It is a gimmick: Venkaiah NEW DELHI FEB. 2. Criticising the setting=20
up of a Peoples' Integration Council, the Bharatiya Janata Party=20
president, Venkaiah Naidu, today said raising the "bogey of=20
communalism'' and talking about "secularism under great stress'' was=20
"highly objectionable''.

Describing the council as a "gimmick'' he said the real purpose was=20
to bring together the non-BJP Opposition, a mission that was bound to=20
"flop''. The Congress and other parties had not learnt the right=20
lessons from Gujarat and they had failed to gauge the mood of the=20
nation, he said.

While the Congress was opposed to the Prevention of Terrorism Act=20
(POTA), it had "quietly invoked it in Maharashtra'', he said. He=20
questioned the Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister's demand for a ban on=20
cow slaughter and alleged that the Congress was "silent'' on the=20
large-scale illegal immigration of Bangladeshis into India.

______

#4.

HARIVANSH RAI BACHCHAN : A EULOGY
I.K.Shukla

To die is landing on some distant shore. =96 John=20
Dryden (1631-1700)

With the doyen of Hindi poetry Bachchan breathing his last at 95 in=20
Mumbai on 18 January 2003, a phenomenon, unique to Hindi, comes to an=20
end. Eulogy being no summation or critique, only a discrete and=20
deferential glimpse of his salient contributions and achievements, is=20
all by way of homage possible for an expatriate vagrant to offer in=20
memoriam.

Bachchan has paid a very reverential tribute to the entire vista of=20
his provenance: Pratapgarh, Basti (Shravasti), Ayodhya, and=20
Allahabad. He claimed all of his inheritance joyously and proudly. He=20
not only remembered and memorialized his roots and forebears, he also=20
recited them in his prose and poetry tirelessly.

He never forsook or failed Awadhi, his mother tongue. Repeatedly he=20
would invoke it for his emotional and literary sustenance. While=20
translating Khayyam=92s rubayiat he fumbled for a proper Hindi word for=20
=93cock=94, and he found his quest admirably answered in Tulasidas:=20
Arunshikha (Uthe Lakhan nisi bigat suni arunsikha dhuni kaan=3DThe=20
night over, Lakshman woke up on hearing the cock crow). His passion=20
for Awadhi made him a lifelong devotee of Tulasi who became his=20
favorite and permanent treasure trove. And, from Awadhi folk songs he=20
never ceased cherishing the lyrical and the lilting. He heard and=20
sang them rapturously. One very popular kajri that I recall having=20
read in his autobiography ran: Are raamaa kachchee kalee kachnaar=20
chhuat dar lagai re Haree (It causes fear to touch the bud). The=20
translation is to poor to mean anything.

His autobiography in four volumes, a landmark in Hindi literature, is=20
sprinkled all over with Awadhi nouns and verbs, some of which he may=20
have rescued from oblivion, and used effectively with exhilaration.=20
As if in a confessional, he once wrote Man ki man hi men rah jaati=20
baat binaa awadhi men bole (Unless spoken in awadhi many things=20
remain mute).

In a tribute to Allahabad he wrote Gata hun apani laya bhasha seekh=20
Allahabad nagar se
(Having learnt my rhythms and language from Allahabad, I sing). He=20
desired that his voice should remain distinct. And his voice remained=20
unique (despite several imitators), like his famous gait and mien.

I had seen him in Agrawal Vidyalaya Inter College, Zero Road,=20
Allahabad, in the late thirties. He was a teacher there. Those were=20
the days when he had established his reputation as a popular poet,=20
highly in demand. Those days he recited his poems, many a time,=20
without even the benefit of a microphone, to very large audiences=20
which would hear him spell bound and request for more.

I saw him in 1945-47 as a Lecturer in English, Allahabad University.=20
I remember very distinctly the scene when he was walking by and saw a=20
student trampling the lawn which had the sign: Don=92t Walk. He just=20
asked the errant boy: Didn=92t you read the sign?

A classmate of mine, Satyendra Sharat, was in Bachchanji's English=20
class. Sharat became close to him. He is a playwright settled in=20
Delhi.

Bachchan's was the first Indian Ph.D. in English Literature from=20
Cambridge University.
There are several such firsts to his credit only a few of which I may=20
recall and relate.

He was the first Hindi poet continuously to earn regular royalties=20
from his poetry. He was the first Hindi poet who without being=20
included in text books earned independently both renown and royalty=20
from his steady stream of writings.

In the 60s, I saw him in Shri Venkateshwar College, New Delhi, when=20
he came to preside
over a function of Hindi Samiti arranged by a colleague of mine, Mr=20
Tiwari. It was a pleasant surprise for him to see someone from=20
Allahabad who, I told him, had once reviewed his book Aarati aur=20
Angaare for Bharat, the Hindi daily of Allahabad. He wanted to see=20
it. Very graciously he invited me to visit him in his office at the=20
External Affairs Ministry. When we met, we talked long, perhaps for=20
hours.

He was a prompt correspondent. To each of my letters from Varanasi in=20
the late fifties he replied regularly. Unfortunately, I lost the=20
precious pile of his letters in circumstances too personal and=20
painful to bear narration here.

Snatches of his poems became instantly and widely popular. And, they=20
became inseparable from the diction of literary and not so literary=20
discourse. Is paar priye madhu hai tum ho, us paar na jaane kya hoga;=20
Kahan manushya hai jise kamee khalee na pyaar kee; Shyama taru par=20
bolne lagee; Jo beet gayee wo baat gayee, etc.

He was the first to have innovatively popularized in Hindi-speaking=20
world the words madhushala (maikada/bar), and madhubala (saki).

Very disciplined in his daily routine, he never looked stern as his=20
picture on the cover of books published by Rajpal, Delhi, show him to=20
be. Rebellious, individualistic, and humane =96 he was a strange=20
amalgam of these endearing attributes. A hilarious and touching=20
moment saw him presiding over an inter-religious marriage. The groom=20
was Susheel, the bride Mumtaz (rechristened by him as Uma). He, as=20
=93father=94, performed kanyadaan!

The variety and volume of his experiences and exertions, and his=20
contacts in the several strata of society, are surprising in their=20
sweep, as too his phenomenal memory of things literary and otherwise.=20
His was a life lived well, lived full. Above all sectarian=20
narrowness, he lived the way he thought, the way he wrote.

He brought the language of Hindi poetry closer to the common usage=20
and bent it skillfully to express his innermost sentiments admirably=20
well, and in the process, he forged a style and diction all his own.

He had the good luck of having his readership in millions. Never had=20
so much success and renown favored any Hindi poet and all that in his=20
lifetime. His creative afflatus never flagged until he became=20
bed-ridden over the last several years.

A long stretch of eventful life and a historic period of Hindi=20
penmanship end with him. He enriched Hindi abundantly. He was one of=20
a kind. He was easily among those few of whom it can be readily said:=20
Naasti yeshaam yashah kaaye jaraa maranajam bhayam (The corpus of his=20
renown need not fear old age or death).

26Jan.03

o o o o

Frontline
February 01 - 14, 2003

OBITUARY
The romantic rebel

RAJENDRA SHARMA

Harivanshrai Bachchan, 1907-2003.
[...]
It is important to note that Harivanshrai Bachchan, born in an=20
ordinary Kaayasth family in a small town near Allahabad and schooled=20
in municipal and Kaayasth Paathshaalas, gave up his university=20
education to participate in the great upsurge of nationalism that=20
began in 1930. Realising after not very long that this was not the=20
path he wanted to follow, he went back to university. His=20
sensibilities nevertheless continued to be influenced and moulded by=20
the freedom movement. Through his translations of Omar Khayyam's=20
Rubaiyat, that famous celebration of Bacchanalia, Bachchan realised=20
the possibilities of using drinking as a poetic metaphor for freedom.=20
And this was a freedom that no doubt had more to do with man's inner=20
spaces. It had to be a celebration of the individual, his freedoms=20
and his self-assertion. This was an affirmation of the individual=20
that broke all social, religious and moral barriers in its radical=20
assertion of the equality of men. This is what made Bachchan write:=20
dharm granth sab jalaa chuki hei, jiske bheetar ki jwalaa mandir,=20
masjid, girje sab kuchh, toad chuka jo matwaalaa pandit, momin,=20
padariyon ke, phandon ko jo kaat chuka kar sakti hai aaj usi ka,=20
swaagat meri Madhushaala [One whose inner fire has burnt all holy=20
books/ One who has demolished all religious places - temple, mosque=20
or church/ One who has cut himself free of the clutches of the=20
pandit, imam and priest/ He alone is today welcome in my Madhushaala.]

The radical critique of institutional religion is carried further in=20
the following passage:Musalmaan aur Hindu do hain, ek magar un ka=20
piala, Ek magar un ka madiralay, ek magar unki hala, Douno rahte ek=20
na jab tak Mandir-Masjid main jate, Mandir-Masjid bair karate, meil=20
karati Madhushaala. [The Muslim and the Hindu are different, but they=20
drink out of the same cup/ They drink at the same tavern, their wine=20
is also the same/ They remain together so long as they stay away from=20
the temple or mosque/ The temple and the mosque divide but the tavern=20
only unites.]
http://www.flonnet.com/fl2003/stories/20030214007511800.htm

--=20
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_

SACW is an informal, independent & non-profit citizens wire service run by
South Asia Citizens Web (http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex) since 1996.
To subscribe send a blank message to:
<act-subscribe@yahoogroups.com> | To unsubscribe send a blank
message to: <act-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
________________________________________

DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not
necessarily reflect the views of SACW compilers.