Have You Passed the Nationalism Test?

Communalism Watch

Resources for all concerned by the rise of the far right in India (and with occasional information on other countries of South Asia and beyond)


March 25, 2016

India: Have You Passed the Nationalism Test? (Shiv Visvanathan)

Open Magazine – 25 March 2016

Have You Passed the Nationalism Test?

by Shiv Visvanathan
Shiv Visvanathan considers himself a social science nomad

A democracy can do without fan clubs and vigilante crowds

SOMETIMES A SMALL event with an almost harmless beginning becomes a hyperbolic space for discussion. In fact the trigger has little or no connection with the fate of the discussion. An almost mundane comment becomes the source of a major witch-hunt and then one realises that it is not the original text that is important but the contexts of discussion and interpretation. The events around the interventions of the AIMIM MLA from Aurangabad in the Maharashtra Assembly provide one such example.

Imtiaz Jaleel was responding to the governor’s speech referring to plans to construct memorials for Shivaji, Bal Thackeray and Babasaheb Ambedkar. Jaleel’s speech was not a personal reaction to any one of the local icons. All he wondered or asked was, should public money be used for the construction of memorials? Jaleel later pointed out to the ironies of the time where banks hounded farmers who haven’t repaid their loans but could not stop a Vijay Mallya for defaulting on Rs 850 crores. He added that a Mallya would have said, ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’ after landing safely at London airport. But what was presented as what economists would call a Guns versus Butter debate became a War Memorials versus Bread debate, between bread as the political economy of everydayness versus sacrament.

Jaleel’s speech was a red flag to the members of the Assembly. They immediately savaged him amidst a chorus of vilification. The BJP MLA Ram Kadam complained that Jaleel had no respect for national heroes. He asked him to recite the slogan Bharat Mata Ki Jai. Jaleel refused, adding that he would not say it at Kadam’s request. He however offered to say Jai Hind. To this refusal, the other members, in a concerted act of Pavlovian nationalism, immediately labelled him traitor and anti-national. The Congress and BJP were happily in tandem. The Congress MLA piously commented that the AIMIM MLAs had no respect for martyrs and added that they should be suspended if they could not chant the national slogan. The BJP MLA Ashish Shelar added that freedom of speech did not include national slogans. He contended Jaleel’s suspension will be a service to the nation.

Revenue Minister Eknath Khadse claimed that anti-national slogans were recited in JNU but were not permissible inside Assembly. The counter-response was that reciting Bharat Mata Ki Jai was not a litmus test of loyalty nor does the Constitution require it. There were different dialects of loyalty and citizenship in the Constitution and it did not say some were more equal than others. It was adequate if the citizen could summon any of them. The Assembly as a chorus suspended the MLA, adding to his sense of isolation.

The reaction of the BJP outside the house was even more disturbing. Dilip Kumar Gandhi, the BJP MP from Ahmednagar, editorialised that the House had a right to suspend Jaleel. “The majority’s feelings should be respected.” To equate majority with democracy literally obviates the need for a Constitution which provides for normative dissent. Gandhi added that “the country has been fair to the Muslims and the government has been trying to bring them into the mainstream.” The question few have the courage to ask is whether mainstreaming is an act of paternalism, a majority’s definition of where a minority should be.

The CPM, in its response, accused the BJP of the usual diversionary tactics, of creating imaginary fault lines between different communities. The Congress, after joining the chorus in the Assembly, condemned it outside as an agenda of polarisation. The BJP General Secretary Kailash Vijayvargiya stole the cherry on the communal cake by claiming expulsion from the Assembly was not enough, one needed to expel such individuals from society.

At one level one, should be able to dismiss some of these tirades as storms in the legislative teacup. However, something about the incident spoils the democratic atmosphere and this we must examine. It raises critical issues about identity, citizenship and loyalty. I want to frame it in terms of two conversations I recently had with Muslim students of mine.

BEING A MUSLIM in India is no longer easy. A student of mine explained, “Try being a Muslim woman in India. You need to be everything except yourself.” She added that it was not truth that matters but political correctness. To be politically correct is to become a yes woman, a stamping pad, a stencil, loyal to an opponent’s stereotype. It is stigma that you have to overcome daily to qualify as a citizen.

Politics for a Muslim as a citizen is not an even playfield. The idea of citizenship does not flatten anything. It makes you more exposed and vulnerable. It is like playing a game with an opponent who also insists on being the referee and the vigilante. Anything a young Muslim says, my student added, “becomes either a security issue or a law and order problem. I cannot enjoy my citizenship or my femininity. Our critics even choose our exemplars. Kalam is the favorite Muslim for the RSS.” A certified ISO/RSS citizen.

Politics for a Muslim as a citizen is not an even playfield. The idea of citizenship does not flatten anything. It makes
you vulnerable. It is like playing a game with an opponent who insists on being the vigilante

Another student, a young Kashmiri, complained that he did not know what to do with memories. “As a Kashmiri child, I felt at home. Then the Army came and I knew I could not be a citizen without an ID card.” Citizenship, he claimed, was now one of identification, not belonging. It becomes an exercise of certificates and clearances. If one protests, the charge of treason is added. “If I complain about violence, I am the problem, not a citizen with the problem, not a citizen with a legitimate complaint.”

The two anecdotes and the event in the legislature forces us to examine the idea of citizenship as a framework of thought and ritual.

CITIZENSHIP WAS AND is a wonderful entitlement. A marker of place, of belonging, of rights. The civics of citizenship as a form of attainment was played against the status of exile, refugee and migrant. Citizenship, or the acknowledgment of citizenship, was a form of homecoming, an arrival. Today the discourse, especially when dealing with minorities, margins and dissenters, creates an unstable idea of citizenship, reducing it to a test, a certification that a surveillance society carries out continuously. It is a topsy-turvy world where one is a suspect and citizen simultaneously.

Partly it is the difference of frameworks, between citizenship as a rite of passage and an instant test of proof and identification. A rite of passage in society creates a different framework of expectation. A rite is a process. It marks a transition, it might have an intermediate period of liminality, of ambiguity, but once the ritual is complete, the individual acquires a new status which is recognised and celebrated.

Loyalty tests become perpetual question marks on who is a citizen and a patriot. Objective and subjective indices create a structure of perpetual suspicion. Dissenters do not feel at home because loyalty and uniformity is confused with homecoming and residence. One was reminded of the British MP Enoch Powell claiming that Indians who are English citizens should cheer for the English team to prove their loyalty to their new country.

There is a second deeper issue, which is about the nature of citizenship and social contract.

The historian Dharampal, a man who loved archives and their possibilities, examined the roots of civil disobedience in the seventeenth and eighteenth century in India. His documents show that Indian society anchored the right of secession as part of rights, or even axiomatic, of citizenship. He gives the example of a village that abandoned a territory. His other documents cite how castes in the city united together to fight rapacious taxes. In such a society, secession and dissent are parts of an active idea of citizenship.

Dharampal adds that the colonial regime sought to create a submissive policy in India and introduced more drastic sedition laws than it had introduced in Ireland and Australia. Sedition was an oppressive colonial tool which our current regimes seem to have internalised. We seem to thoughtlessly impose on dissenters, who are lawful citizens, relationships which are inherently colonial. In Dharampal’s evocative archives, it is dissent that is an act of loyalty and commitment to citizenship, while the loyalty test is a colonial aberration. The RSS and the Congress seek to perpetuate colonialism by other means.

Loyalty tests become perpetual question marks on who is a citizen and a patriot. Objective and subjective indices create a structure of perpetual suspicion

There is thirdly the idea of a diversified polity. Citizenship is constructed as a space for thoughtful civics where dissent and difference are a way of life. Difference is built into politics where patriotism is differentiated from nationalism. Nationalism can be jingoistic, provide for the vigilantism of loyalty tests but citizenship has to allow for difference. In the Assembly, Jaleel was performing an act as a citizen yet he was subjected to loyalty tests. Citizenship has to allow for debate. However, when citizenship reduces participation to the level of a loyal jingoistic spectator, the fan club and the vigilante crowd provide the index of citizenship. Society becomes an excessive search for scapegoats. Belief becomes behaviouristic and instead of citizenship, what we create is a society of mimic rationalists.

In fact, loyalty tests have become knee-jerk. There is something about the Pavlovian test about loyalty rituals where one expects citizens to salivate like dogs when the bell rings. Secondly, one has to understand that memory is not uniform; that different slogans carry varieties of regional memory. To insist on only one formulation destroys the idea of nationalism as a process which may not be complete. To officialise loyalty destroys the dialects of both citizenship and loyalty. When dialects of citizenship are erased, democracy disappears. It is an erasure that we cannot afford.

A society based on differences does not need the instantaneity of loyalty tests. All it might need is the rationality, and the plurality of conversation. After the governor’s speech, when Jaleel raised his fears, legislators could have answered him quietly and reassuringly. Sanity and rationality could have saved the day. Sadly, a simple question got blown out of proportion. A question in a democratic Assembly triggered the possibilities of a witch-hunt. The sadness of democracy begins there.



ಯುವಜನತೆ ಮತ್ತು ಪ್ರಜಾತಂತ್ರಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಅಂಬೇಡ್ಕ ರ್‌’ ಅಭಿಯಾನ ‘ಜನಜಾಗೃತಿಯಿಂದ ಪ್ರಜಾತಂತ್ರ’ – ಡಾ. ಎ ಚ್‌.ಎಸ್‌. ಅನುಪಮಾ

ಯುವಜನತೆ ಮತ್ತು ಪ್ರಜಾತಂತ್ರಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಅಂಬೇಡ್ಕರ್‌’ ಅಭಿಯಾನ

‘ಜನಜಾಗೃತಿಯಿಂದ ಪ್ರಜಾತಂತ್ರ’

(ಪ್ರಜಾವಾಣಿ ವಾರ್ತೆ)

ಉಡುಪಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಭಾನುವಾರ ನಡೆದ ‘ಯುವಜನತೆ ಮತ್ತು ಪ್ರಜಾತಂತ್ರಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಅಂಬೇಡ್ಕರ್‌’ ಅಭಿಯಾನದ ಸಮಾರೋಪ ಸಮಾರಂಭವನ್ನು ವಿದ್ಯಾರ್ಥಿಗಳು ಸಂವಿಧಾನದ ಪ್ರಸ್ತಾವನೆಯ ಭಿತ್ತಿ ಚಿತ್ರವನ್ನು ಅನಾವರಣಗೊಳಿಸುವ ಮೂಲಕ ಉದ್ಘಾಟಿಸಿದರು.

ಉಡುಪಿ: ಸಮಾನತೆ, ಸೋದರತೆ ಮತ್ತು ಸ್ವಾತಂತ್ರ್ಯ ಈ ಮೂರು ಅಂಶಗಳ ಆಧಾರದ ಮೇಲೆ ಭಾರತೀಯ ಸಮಾಜ ರೂಪುಗೊಳ್ಳಬೇಕು. ಆ ರೀತಿ ಸಮಾಜ ನಿರ್ಮಾಣವಾಗಬೇಕಾದರೆ ಸೂಕ್ತ ಜನಪ್ರತಿನಿಧಿಗಳನ್ನು ಆಯ್ಕೆ ಮಾಡಬೇಕು ಎಂದು ಲೇಖಕಿ ಡಾ. ಎಚ್‌.ಎಸ್‌. ಅನುಪಮಾ ಹೇಳಿದರು.

ಬೆಂಗಳೂರಿನ ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರೀಯ ಕಾನೂನು ಶಾಲೆ ಮತ್ತು ಅಂಬೇಡ್ಕರ್‌ ಅಧ್ಯಯನ ಕೇಂದ್ರ ಹಾಗೂ ಜಿಲ್ಲಾ ದಲಿತ, ಪ್ರಗತಿಪರ–ಜನಪರ ಸಂಘಟನೆಯ ಸಂಯುಕ್ತ ಆಶ್ರಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಉಡುಪಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಭಾನುವಾರ ನಡೆದ ‘ಯುವಜನತೆ ಮತ್ತು ಪ್ರಜಾತಂತ್ರಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಅಂಬೇಡ್ಕರ್‌’ ಅಭಿಯಾನದ ಸಮಾರೋಪ ಸಮಾರಂಭದಲ್ಲಿ ಅವರು ಮಾತನಾಡಿದರು.

ಉತ್ತಮ ಜನಪ್ರತಿನಿಧಿಗಳನ್ನು ಆಯ್ಕೆಮಾಡುವಂತೆ ಜನರಲ್ಲಿ ಜಾಗೃತಿ ಮೂಡಿಸಬೇಕು. ಜನರು ಜಾಗೃತರಾದರೆ ಸೂಕ್ತ ಪ್ರಜಾತಂತ್ರ ನಿರ್ಮಾಣವಾಗುತ್ತದೆ ಇದರಲ್ಲಿ ಪಕ್ಷಪಾತೀಯ ಧೋರಣೆ ಸಲ್ಲದು ಎಂದರು.

ನಾವು ಇಂದು 2ನೇ ಸ್ವಾತಂತ್ರ್ಯ ಹೋರಾಟದ ಅಗತ್ಯ ಇರುವಂತಹ ಕಾಲಘಟ್ಟದಲ್ಲಿದ್ದೇವೆ. ಈ ದೇಶದಲ್ಲಿ ಇನ್ನೂ ಅನೇಕ ಜನರಿಗೆ ಸ್ವಾತಂತ್ರ್ಯ ಸಿಕ್ಕಿಲ್ಲ. ಅದನ್ನು ಕೇಳಲು ಹೊರಟವರಿಗೆ ದೇಶದ್ರೋಹದ ಪಟ್ಟ ಕಟ್ಟಿ ಜೈಲಿಗೆ ಅಟ್ಟುತ್ತಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎಂದರು.

ದೇಶದ ಬಹುಪಾಲು ಜನರ ಮೇಲೆ ಬಲವಂತದ ಮೌನವನ್ನು ಹೇರಲಾಗುತ್ತಿದೆ ಎಂದು ಟೀಕಿಸಿದರು. ಅಲ್ಲದೇ ಯಾರು ಜನಪರ, ಬಡವರ ಪರವಾಗಿ ಧ್ವನಿ ಎತ್ತುತಿದ್ದಾರೆಯೋ, ಅವರ ಮೇಲೆ ಪ್ರಕರಣ ದಾಖಲಿಸುತ್ತಿದ್ದಾರೆ.

ಅಲ್ಲದೇ ಶಾಂತಿಯ ಮೂಲಕ ಈ ದೇಶದಲ್ಲಿ ಕಾಂತ್ರಿ ತಂದವರು ಅಂಬೇಡ್ಕರ್‌. ಅವರು ಹಕ್ಕು ಕಳೆದುಕೊಂಡಿರುವ ಜನರಿಗೆ ಹಕ್ಕು ಕೊಡಿಸಲು ಹೋರಾಡಿದರು.

ಈ ಕೊಳೆಯುತ್ತಿರುವ ಸಮಾಜವನ್ನು ಚಲನಶೀಲಗೊಳಿಸಿದರು. ಆದರೂ ಅವರನ್ನು ಇಂದಿಗೂ ದೇಶದ್ರೋಹಿ ಎಂದು ಬಿಂಬಿಸಲಾಗುತ್ತಿದೆ.
ದಲಿತ ಮತದಾನದ ಸರಾಸರಿ ಪ್ರಮಾಣ ಶೇಕಡ 16.3 ಇಲ್ಲದೆ ಹೋಗಿದ್ದರೆ, ದಲಿತರನ್ನು ದೇಶದ್ರೋಹಿಗಳೆನ್ನುತ್ತಿದ್ದರು. ಇದು ವಿಷಾದನೀಯ ಅಂಗತಿ
ಅಲ್ಲದೇ ಇವರು ಮತಗಳ ಮೇಲೆ ಕಣ್ಣಿಟ್ಟು ಹೇಳುವ ಬೂಟಾಟಿಕೆಯ ಮಾತಿಗೆ ದಮನಿತ, ತಳ ಸಮುದಾಯದವರು ಮರುಳಾಗಬಾರದು ಎಂದು ಸಲಹೆ ನೀಡಿದರು.

ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಕೋಮು ಸೌಹಾರ್ದ ವೇದಿಕೆಯ ಜಿಲ್ಲಾಧ್ಯಕ್ಷ ಜಿ. ರಾಜಶೇಖರ್‌ ಅಧ್ಯಕ್ಷತೆಯನ್ನು ವಹಿಸಿದ್ದರು. ದಲಿತ ಸಂಘಟನೆಯ ಮುಖಂಡರಾದ ಶ್ಯಾಮ ರಾಜ್‌ ಬಿರ್ತಿ, ಎಸ್‌.ಎಸ್‌. ಪ್ರಸಾದ್‌, ಶೇಖರ್‌ ಹೆಜ್ಮಾಡಿ, ಉದಯ ಕುಮಾರ್‌, ಮಂಜುನಾಥ್‌, ವಿಶ್ವನಾಥ ಪೇತ್ರಿ, ಉಮೇಶ್‌ ಕುಮಾರ್‌, ಉದ್ಯಾವರ ನಾಗೇಶ್‌ ಕುಮಾರ್‌, ವಿಲಿಯಂ ಮಾರ್ಟಿಸ್‌, ಚಾರ್ಲ್ಸ್‌ ಆಂಬ್ಲರ್‌, ಸಲ್ಲಾವುದ್ದೀನ್‌ ಎ ಶೇಕ್‌ ಉಪಸ್ಥಿತರಿದ್ದರು. ನಾರಾಯಣ ಮಾಣೂರು ಪ್ರಾಸ್ತಾವಿಕವಾಗಿ ಮಾತನಾಡಿದರು. ಕೆ. ಫಣಿರಾಜ್‌ ಸ್ವಾಗತಿಸಿದರು, ದಿನಕರ ಬೆಂಗ್ರೆ ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮ ನಿರೂಪಿಸಿದರು.

ದೇಶ ಭಕ್ತಿ ಎಂದರೆ…
ದೇಶ ಭಕ್ತಿ ಅಂದರೆ ಕೇವಲ ಸಿಯಾಚಿನ್‌ ಗಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ನಿಂತು ಪ್ರಾಣವನ್ನು ಒಪ್ಪಿಸೋದು, ಗಡಿ ಕಾಯೋದಷ್ಟೇ ಅಲ್ಲ. ಮೂಲಭೂತ ಹಕ್ಕುಗಳಿಂದ ವಂಚಿತರಾಗಿರುವ ಮತ್ತು ಬಡತನರೇಖೆಯಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಜನರ ದೃಷ್ಟಿಕೋನದಲ್ಲಿ ಈ ಸಮಾಜವನ್ನು ನೋಡಿ ಮಾತನಾಡುವುದು. ಅದು ದೇಶಪರ, ಜನಪರ, ದೇಶಭಕ್ತಿ ಅನಿಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತದೆ. ಇದನ್ನು ಅಂಬೇಡ್ಕರ್‌ ಆ ಕಾಲಘಟ್ಟದಲ್ಲಿಯೇ ಪ್ರತಿಪಾದಿಸಿದ್ದರು ಎಂದು ಎಚ್‌.ಎಸ್‌. ಅನುಪಮಾ ಅಭಿಪ್ರಾಯಪಟ್ಟರು.

ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರೀಯ ಕಾನೂನು ಶಾಲೆ ರಾಜ್ಯವ್ಯಾಪಿ ಆಯೋಜಿ ಸಿದ್ದ ”ಯುವಜನತೆ ಮತ್ತು ಪ್ರಜಾತಂತ್ರಕ್ಕಾಗಿಅಂಬೇಡ ್ಕರ್” ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮದ ಸಮಾರೋಪ ನಿನ್ನೆ (ಮಾರ್ಚ್,27-2016)ಉಡ ುಪಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ನಡೆದಿದ್ದು, ಅದರ ವರದಿ ಇಂದಿನ(ಮಾರ್ಚ್,28-2016) ವಾರ್ತಾಭಾರತಿ ಪತ್ರಿಕೆಯಲ್ಲಿ

ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರೀಯ ಕಾನೂನು ಶಾಲೆ ರಾಜ್ಯವ್ಯಾಪಿ ಆಯೋಜಿಸಿದ್ದ ”ಯುವಜನತೆ ಮತ್ತು ಪ್ರಜಾತಂತ್ರಕ್ಕಾಗಿಅಂಬೇಡ್ಕರ್” ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮದ ಸಮಾರೋಪ ಸಮಾರಂಭವು ನಿನ್ನೆ (ಮಾರ್ಚ್,27-2016) ಉಡುಪಿಯ ಡಾನ್ ಬಾಸ್ಕೋ ಹಾಲ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ನಡೆದಿತ್ತು.
ಸಮಾರೋಪ ಸಮಾರಂಭದಲ್ಲಿ ಸಮಾರೋಪ ಭಾಷಣಕಾರರಾಗಿ ಲೇಖಕಿ – ಮಹಿಳಾ ಪರ ಹೋರಾಟಗಾರರಾಗಿರುವ ಡಾ.ಎಚ್.ಎಸ್.ಅನುಪಮಾರವರು ಆಗಮಿಸಿದ್ದರು. ಅದರ ವರದಿ ಇಂದಿನ (ಮಾರ್ಚ್,28-2016) ವಾರ್ತಾಭಾರತಿ ದಿನಪತ್ರಿಕೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರಕಟವಾಗಿದೆ.

How Modi Bhakts first gave Dr Narang’s murder a communal angle and then abused the investigating officer

New post on Truth Of Gujarat

How Modi Bhakts first gave Dr Narang’s murder a communal angle and then abused the investigating officer

by Pratik Sinha

On the night of 24th March, 2016, a 40 year old Dentist, Dr Pankaj Narang, was beaten to death by a group of people in west Delhi’s Vikaspuri area. Reportedly, Dr Pankaj Narang scolded two men on a motorcycle when they brushed past his 8 year old son who was trying to retrieve a cricket ball. The two men returned later with a larger mob and dragged Dr Narang out of his house and beat him to death with sticks and roads.

The absolute horrific nature of the incident left many people shocked and the issue became a trending subject on social media. As news percolated that one of the two men on the bike was from the minority community, the narrative took a communal turn. Certain Twitter accounts and Facebook pages who are known to be avowed Modi supporters especially were at the forefront in giving this horrific murder a communal angle. The narrative that these Modi supporters aka Bhakts were trying to push was that mob which lynched Dr Narang belonged to the minority community and that the murder was a communal hate crime.

bhak_sala_tweet_holi-Narang-delhi-DoctorRahul Raj, who is a co-founder of a website called OpIndia which claims to expose media lies, tweeted:

"The doctor’s son threw Holi color on some Muslim Kids. This was so insulting to the tolerant Delhi people that they lynched the doctor".

Though Rahul later withdrew his tweet, many of those who support PM Narendra Modi on social media including those whom Mr Modi himself follows on Twitter continued to spread these dangerous rumours. Some of the tweets by people whom Mr Modi himself follows on Twitter can be seen here:


The issue became so serious that the Additional DCP (West) Ms. Monika Bhardwaj had to make a public statement on Twitter to quell the rampant rumours. She tweeted twice and stated:

Out of 9 accused person 5 r Hindu.At the moment of first scuffle, out of 2, 1 was Hindu.The Muslim accused r residents of UP ,not Bangladesh. 4 juveniles among 9 arrested for murder of vikaspuri doctor. No religious angle at all, as rumoured by some. We appeal u to maintain peace.


Soon enough, some of those who were spreading dangerous canards turned their scourge towards Monika Bhardwaj and she was at the receiving end of an online attack, with some of the tweets being highly sexist.


To stop the rumour-mongering, even Joint Commissioner Deepak Pathak made a media statement restating Ms. Monika’s assertions and reiterating the fact that the accused were from Uttar Pradesh and had no connection with Bangladesh.


Even a family member of Dr Narang had to state publicly that there was no communal angle to the issue after one of the pet pages of many Modi Fans on Facebook – ‘The Frustrated Indian’ wrote a twisted account of the incident.


However, even these clarifications by two senior police officials and family members of the victim themselves did not deter certain Modi followers who started trending the hashtag #IllegalBangladeshiMuslims on Twitter while suggesting that those who lynched Dr Narang were Illegal Bangladeshis. Again, this included people whom Mr Modi himself follows on twitter including the following two Twitter accounts:


Thus continues the unfortunate saga of BJP Social Media supporters spreading doctored videos, photoshopoped images, rumours and communal canards at every possible opportunity, whether it’d be JNU or Malda or Dr Narang’s murder.

Pratik Sinha | March 27, 2016 at 4:46 pm | Categories: Politics | URL:http://www.truthofgujarat.com/?p=5338

Comment See all comments
Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from Truth Of Gujarat.
Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:

Neither Right nor Left: Politics on Bhagat Singh insulting his legacy


Neither Right nor Left: Politics on Bhagat Singh insulting his legacy

  • Abhishek Saha, Hindustan Times
  • Updated: Mar 22, 2016 21:55 IST

Bhagat Singh was one of the most original Marxist thinkers in the country who not only dreamt of freedom from the British Raj but also of an egalitarian and secular India. (File Photo)

ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರೀಯ ಕಾನೂನು ಶಾಲೆ ರಾಜ್ಯವ್ಯಾಪಿ ಆಯೋಜಿ ಸಿದ್ದ ”ಯುವಜನತೆ ಮತ್ತು ಪ್ರಜಾತಂತ್ರಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಅಂಬೇ ಡ್ಕರ್” ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮದ ಸಮಾರೋಪ – ನಾಳೆ (ಮಾರ್ಚ್,27-2016) ಉಡ ುಪಿಯ ಡಾನ್ ಬಾಸ್ಕೋ ಹಾಲ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ

ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರೀಯ ಕಾನೂನು ಶಾಲೆ ರಾಜ್ಯವ್ಯಾಪಿ ಆಯೋಜಿಸಿದ್ದ ”ಯುವಜನತೆ ಮತ್ತು ಪ್ರಜಾತಂತ್ರಕ್ಕಾಗಿಅಂಬೇಡ್ಕರ್” ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮದ ಸಮಾರೋಪ – ನಾಳೆ (ಮಾರ್ಚ್,27-2016) ಉಡುಪಿಯ ಡಾನ್ ಬಾಸ್ಕೋ ಹಾಲ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ನಡೆಯಲಿದೆ. ಇದರ ಅಂಗವಾಗಿ ಬೆಳಿಗ್ಗೆ ವಿದ್ಯಾರ್ಥಿಗಳಿಗೆ ಪ್ರಬಂಧ ಮತ್ತು ಭಾಷಣ ಸ್ಪರ್ಧೆ ನಡೆಯಲಿದ್ದು. ಮಧ್ಯಾಹ್ನ 2.30 ರಿಂದ ಸಮಾರೋಪ ಸಮಾರಂಭ ಮತ್ತು ಬಹುಮಾನ ವಿತರಣಾ ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮ ನಡೆಯಲಿದೆ.
ಸಮಾರೋಪ ಸಮಾರಂಭದಲ್ಲಿ ಸಮಾರೋಪ ಭಾಷಣಕಾರರಾಗಿ ಲೇಖಕಿ – ಮಹಿಳಾ ಪರ ಹೋರಾಟಗಾರರಾಗಿರುವ ಡಾ.ಎಚ್.ಎಸ್.ಅನುಪಮಾರವರು ಆಗಮಿಸಲಿದ್ದಾರೆ.

Ambedkar Abhiyana Samaropa- PressNote.docx

ಪುತ್ತೂರು ದೇಗುಲದ ಆಮಂತ್ರಣ ಪತ್ರಿಕಾ ವಿವಾದ – ಕ ೋಮು ರಾಜಕೀಯದ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ಉಡುಪಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರತಿಭಟನೆ

ದಕ್ಷಿಣಕನ್ನಡ ಜಿಲ್ಲೆಯ ಪುತ್ತೂರಿನ ಶ್ರೀಮಹಾಲಿಂಗೇಶ್ವರ ದೇವಸ್ಥಾನದ ಉತ್ಸವದ ಆಮಂತ್ರಣ ಪತ್ರಿಕೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ದ.ಕ.ಜಿಲ್ಲಾಧಿಕಾರಿ ಎ.ಬಿ.ಇಬ್ರಾಹಿಂ ಅವರ ಹೆಸರು ಇರುವುದನ್ನು ವಿರೋಧಿಸುವ ಕೋಮುವಾದಿ ಸಂಘಟನೆಗಳ ಕೋಮು ವಿದ್ವೇಷದ ವಿರುದ್ಧದ ಕಾರ್ಯವನ್ನು ವಿರೋಧಿಸಿ, ನಿನ್ನೆ ( ಮಾರ್ಚ್,25-2016)ಉಡುಪಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ನಡೆಸಿದ ಪ್ರತಿಭಟನೆಯ ವರದಿ ಇಂದಿನ ( ಮಾರ್ಚ್,26-2016) ಕನ್ನಡಪ್ರಭದಲ್ಲಿ

ಭಗತ್ ಸಿಂಗ್ ಮತ್ತು ಸಾವರ್ಕರ್ ಅವರ ಜೈಲು ಹೇಳಿಗೆ ಳ ವ್ಯತ್ಯಾಸ- ಅನುವಾದ ಮಾಡಿ ವಿಸ್ತೃತವಾಗಿ ಹಂಚಬೇಕು


ಕೆಳಗಡೆ the wire ಎಂಬ ವೆಬ್ ಪತ್ರಿಕೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಜೈಲಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಇದ್ದಾಗ ಭಗತ್ ಸಿಂಗ್ ಮತ್ತು ಸಾವರ್ಕರ್ ಅವರು ಬೇರೆ ಬೇರೆ ಕಾಲಘಟ್ಟದಲ್ಲಿ ಬ್ರಿಟಿಷ್ ಸರ್ಕಾರಕ್ಕೆ ಬರೆದ ಪತ್ರದ ಒಕ್ಕಣೆ ಇದೆ.

ಇದು ಅವರಿಬ್ಬರ ರಾಜಕೀಯದಲ್ಲಿನ ವ್ಯತ್ಯಾಸಗಳನ್ನು ಮಾತ್ರವಲ್ಲ ದೇಶಭಕ್ತಿಯ ವಿಷಯದಲ್ಲೂ ಅವರಿಬ್ಬರಿಗಿದ್ದ ವ್ಯತ್ಯಾಸವನ್ನು ಸ್ಪಷ್ಟವಾಗಿ ತಿಳಿಸುತ್ತದೆ.

ಒಂದೆಡೆ ಸಾವರ್ಕರ್ ತಮ್ಮ ಪತ್ರದ ಉದ್ದಕ್ಕೂ ಜೈಲಿನಲ್ನಾಲ್ಲಿ ತನಗಾ ಗು ತ್ತಿರುವ ಕಷ್ಟಗಳ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಗೋಳು ಹೇಳಿಕೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಮತ್ತು ತನ್ನನ್ನು ಬಿಡುಗಡೆ ಮಾಡಿದರೆ ತಾನು ಮುಂದಿನ ಜೀವನವನ್ನು ಬ್ರಿಟಿಷ್ ಸರ್ಕಾರದ ಆಳ್ವಿಕೆಯನ್ನು ಧೃಡಪಡಿಸಲು ಶ್ರಮಿಸುವುದಾಗಿ ಭರವಸೆ ನೀಡುತ್ತಾರೆ.

ಮತ್ತೊಂದೆಡೆ ಭಗತ್ ಸಿಂಗ ಮರಣದಂಡನೆಯ ನೆರಳಿನಲ್ಲೂ ಬ್ರಿಟಿಷ ಸಾಮ್ರಾಜ್ಯಶಾಹಿಯ ವಿರುದ್ಧದ ಭಾರತೀಯರ ಯುದ್ಧ ತಮ್ಮನ್ನು ಕೊಂದರು ಮುಂದುವರೆಯುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದು ಎಚ್ಚರಿಸುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಮಾತ್ರವಲ್ಲ ಇದು ಬಂಡವಾಳಷಾಹಿಯ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ಸಮಾಜವಾದಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ನಡೆಯುತ್ತಿರುವ ಯುದ್ಧವೆಂದು ಹೇಳುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಹಾಗೆಯೇ ತಮ್ಮನ್ನು ಯುದ್ಧ ಕೈದಿಗಳೆಂದೇ ಪರಿಗಣಿಸಬೇಕೆಂದು ಕೋರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಅವರು ಮಾಡುವ ಏಕೈಕ ಮನವಿ ತಮ್ಮನ್ನು ಬಿಡುಗಡೆ ಮಾಡಿ ಎಂದಲ್ಲ.. ಬದಲಿಗೆ ತಮ್ಮನ್ನು ನೇಣು ಹಾಕಿ ಅಗೌರವಿಸದೆ ಗುಂಡಿಟ್ಟು ಕೊಲ್ಲಬೇಕು ಎಂಬುದು!

. ಸಾವರ್ಕರ್ ಪತ್ರದ ಉದ್ದೇಶ ಇತರ ಕೈದಿಗಳಿಗೆ ಇರುವ ಸೌಲಭ್ಯವು ತನಗಿಲ್ಲವೆಂಬ ಹಲುಬು ಮತ್ತು ಅಂತಿಮವಾಗಿ ತನ್ನ ಸ್ವಾರ್ಥಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ದೇಶದ ಹಿತವನ್ನು ಬಲಿಗೊಟ್ಟು ಬ್ರಿಟಿಷರ ಜೊತೆ ಕೈಜೋಡಿಸುವುದಾಗಿದ್ದರೆ..ಭಗತ್ ಸಿಂಗ್ ಪತ್ರದ ಉದ್ದೇಶ ದೇಶದ ಜನರ ನಿಜವಾದ ಸ್ವಾತಂತ್ರ್ಯ ಮತ್ತು ಅದಕ್ಕೆ ಸಂತೋಷವಾಗಿ ಬಲಿದಾನ ಮಾಡುವ ಅಪ್ರತಿಮ ಆದರ್ಶ .

. ನಂತರದಲ್ಲಿ ಬ್ರಿಟಿಷರು ಇಂದಿಗೆ ೮೫ ವರ್ಷದ ಹಿಂದೆ ಭಗತ್ ಸಿಂಗ್ ರಾಜಗುರು ಸುಖದೇವ್ ಅವರನ್ನು ಕೊಂದು ಹಾಕುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಮತ್ತೊಂದೆಡೆ ಸಾವರ್ಕರ್ ಅವರನ್ನು ಬಿಡುಗಡೆ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಾರೆ. ನಂತರ ಸಾವರ್ಕರ್ ಜೀವನದುದ್ದಕ್ಕೂ ತಾವು ಬ್ರಿಟಿಷರಿಗೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟ ಭರವಸೆಯಂತೆ ನಡೆದುಕೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಹಿಂದೂ ಮುಸ್ಲಿಮರ ನಡುವೆ ದ್ವೇಷ ಬೆಳೆಸುವ ಮೂಲಕ ಬ್ರಿಟಿಷ ಆಡಳಿತಕ್ಕೆ ಒಮ್ಮತದ ಪ್ರತಿರೋಧ ಬರದಂತೆ ಅಹರ್ನಿಶಿ ಶ್ರಮಿಸುತ್ತಾರೆ ..! ಇಂದು ಅವರ ದುಷ್ಟ ಸಂತಾನವೇ ದೇಶಭಕ್ತರೆಂದು ಮೆರೆಯುತ್ತಿದ್ದಾರೆ.

ಆದ್ದರಿಂದ ಭಗತ್ ಸಿಂಗ್ ಹುತಾತ್ಮನಾದ ಈ ದಿನದಂದು ಯಾರು ದೇಷಭಕ್ತರೆಂದು ಜನರೇತೀರ್ಮಾನ ಮಾಡಲು ಈ ಎರಡೂ ಹೇಳಿಕೆಗಳನ್ನು ವಿಸ್ತೃತವಾಗಿ ಪ್ರಚಾರಕ್ಕೆ ತರಬೇಕು. ಅಲ್ಲವೇ?

Bhagat Singh and Savarkar, Two Petitions that Tell Us the Difference Between Hind and Hindutva



bhagat singh savarkarEighty-five years ago, on March 23, 1931, Shaheed Bhagat Singh and his two comrades-in-arms, Shaheed Rajguru and Shaheed Sukhdev were hanged in Lahore by the British colonial government. At the time of his martyrdom, Bhagat Singh was barely 23 years old. Despite the fact that he had his whole life ahead of him, he refused to seek clemency from the British as some well-wishers and family members wanted him to do. In his last petition and testament, he demanded that the British be true to the charge they laid against him of waging war against the colonial state and that he be executed by firing squad and not by hanging. The document also lays out his vision for an India whose working people are free from exploitation by either British or Indian “parasites”.

At a time when the Bharatiya Janata Party national executive has decided to make nationalism its rallying cry, it is useful to compare the patriotic attitude and vision of Bhagat Singh with that of the Sangh parivar’s icon, V.D. Savarkar, author and originator of the concept of ‘Hindutva’, which the BJP swears by.

Sent to the notorious Cellular Jail in the Andamans in 1911 for his revolutionary activity, Savarkar first petitioned the British for early release within months of beginning his 50 year sentence. Then again in 1913 and several times till he was finally transferred to a mainland prison in 1921 before his final release in 1924. The burden of his petitions: let me go and I will give up the fight for independence and be loyal to the colonial government.

Savarkar’s defenders insist his promises were a tactical ploy; but his critics say they were not, and that he stayed true to his promise after leaving the Andamans by staying away from the freedom struggle and actually helping the British with his divisive theory of ‘Hindutva’, which was another form of the Muslim League’s Two Nation theory.

Reproduced below are Shaheed Bhagat Singh’s last petition and the petition V.D. Savarkar filed in 1913.

ಉಡುಪಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ನಾಳೆ (ಮಾರ್ಚ್,23-2016) ಭಗತ್ ಸಿಂಗ್, ಸು ಖ್ ದೇವ್ ಮತ್ತು ರಾಜ್ ಗುರು ಹುತಾತ್ಮ ದಿನಾಚರಣೆ

¨sÀUÀvï ¹AUï, ¸ÀÄSï zÉÃªï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÁeï UÀÄgÀÄ



¥ÀArvï gÁªÀiï ¥Àæ¸Ázï ©¹ä¯ÁègÀ ‘¸À¥ÀðgÉÆö Q vÀªÀÄ£Áß’ UÁAiÀÄ£À

¨sÀUÀvï ¹AUï gÀa¹zÀ ‘gÉqï ¥ÁåA¥Éèmï ’ £À NzÀÄ«PÉ

ªÀiÁZïð,23 -2016 ¸ÀܼÀ : PÁèPï lªÀgï §½, GqÀĦ

¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ : ¸ÀAeÉ –7.00 UÀAmÉUÉ



PÀ£ÁðlPÀ zÀ°vÀ ¸ÀAWÀµÀð ¸À«Äw (j.)