Monday, December 6, 2010

অ্যান্ডারসনকে ছেড়ে দেওয়ায় রাজীব গান্ধীর ভূমিকা ছিল


যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের ইউনিয়ন কার্বাইডের সাবেক চেয়ারম্যান ওয়ারেন অ্যান্ডারসনকে ছেড়ে দেওয়ার ব্যাপারে ভারতের প্রয়াত প্রধানমন্ত্রী রাজীব গান্ধীর হাত ছিল। হেডলাইনস টুডে ও সিএনএন-আইবিএনে প্রকাশিত প্রতিবেদনে এ তথ্য জানানো হয়েছে।
ভারতের মধ্যপ্রদেশ রাজ্যের ভোপালে ইউনিয়ন কার্বাইডের রাসায়নিক কারখানায় ১৯৮৪ সালের ৩ ডিসেম্বর দুর্ঘটনা ঘটে। এতে বেসরকারি হিসাবে ১৫ হাজার মানুষের মৃত্যু এবং প্রায় ছয় লাখ মানুষ ক্ষতিগ্রস্ত হয়। গত সোমবার ওই মামলার রায় ঘোষণা করা হয়। এতে ইউনিয়ন কার্বাইডের ভারতীয় আট কর্মকর্তাকে শাস্তি দেওয়া হলেও ওয়ারেন অ্যান্ডারসনের বিরুদ্ধে কোনো ব্যবস্থা নেওয়া হয়নি। এমনকি রায়ের কোথাও তাঁর সম্পর্কে কোনো কিছু উল্লেখ করা হয়নি।
পিসি আলেকজান্ডারের বরাত দিয়ে ভারতীয় নিউজ চ্যানেল হেডলাইনস টুডে জানায়, রাজ্যসরকারের সহায়তা ছাড়া অ্যান্ডারসন মুক্তি পেতে পারেন না। তত্কালীন প্রধানমন্ত্রী রাজীব গান্ধী মধ্যপ্রদেশের তত্কালীন মুখ্যমন্ত্রী অর্জুন সিংয়ের সঙ্গে পরামর্শ করে অ্যান্ডারসনকে ছাড়ার ব্যাপারে ভূমিকা রাখেন। রাজীব গান্ধীর সঙ্গে অর্জুন সিংয়ের বৈঠকের পর অ্যান্ডারসনকে ছেড়ে দেওয়া হয়। তাঁকে ছেড়ে দেওয়ার ব্যাপারে জ্যেষ্ঠ কর্মকর্তারা কিছুই জানতেন না।
সিএএনএন-আবিএন-এর এক প্রতিবেদনেও একই ধরনের তথ্য দিয়ে একটি প্রতিবেদন প্রকাশ করা হয়েছে। এতে বলা হয়, মার্কিন গোয়েন্দা সংস্থা সিআইএর নথি অনুযায়ী রাজীব গান্ধী সরকারের নির্দেশে ৭ ডিসেম্বর অ্যান্ডারসনকে ছেড়ে দেওয়া হয়। ওই নথি অনুযায়ী অ্যান্ডারসন ৮ ডিসেম্বর ভারত ত্যাগ করেন। এ ঘটনায় ভারতের রাজনীতিকেরা পারস্পরিক কাদা ছোড়াছুড়ি করেন ও ইউনিয়ন কার্বাইডের ভারত শাখার ওপর চাপ সৃষ্টি করেন।
ভোপাল দুর্ঘটনার তিন দিন পর ৭ ডিসেম্বর ওয়ারেন অ্যান্ডারসনকে গ্রেপ্তার করা হয়। কিন্তু ওই দিনই তাঁকে ছেড়ে দেওয়া হয়। পরে রাজ্যসরকারের বিশেষ বিমানে তিনি নয়াদিল্লি যান। অ্যান্ডারসনকে বিমানবন্দর পর্যন্ত নিয়ে যান মধ্যপ্রদেশের তত্কালীন শীর্ষস্থানীয় কর্মকর্তা মতি সিং। তিনি বলেন, আমি শুধু ঊর্ধ্বতন কর্তৃপক্ষের আদেশ পালন করেছি। অভিযোগ রয়েছে, মধ্যপ্রদেশের তত্কালীন মুখ্যসচিব ব্রাম সরুপ ব্যক্তিগতভাবে মতি সিংকে ডেকে পাঠান। পরে অ্যান্ডারসনকে ছেড়ে দেওয়ার নির্দেশ দেন। মতি সিং বলেন, অ্যান্ডারসনকে ছেড়ে দেওয়ার কারণ তাঁকে জানানো হয়নি। অর্জুন সিং এসব প্রতিবেদনকে অমূলক বলে অভিহিত করেছেন। তিনি বলেন, ওই ঘটনার সময় পরিস্থিতির পরিপ্রেক্ষিতে তাঁকে কিছু কাজ করতে হয়েছে। হিন্দুস্তান টাইমস।

Thursday, March 18, 2010

Sainbari killings: Bedlam in House


Kolkata: When the power crisis in the state came up for discussion in the Assembly on Wednesday,power minister Nirupam Sen faced grim questions from Left Front members but not from the Opposition.
The mystery was resolved later,when Congress and Trinamool members jointly moved an adjournment motion,branding Sen a villain in the infamous Sainbari massacre in Burdwan on March 17,1970 exactly four decades back and demanded a discussion.When speaker Hashim Abdul Halim disallowed the motion,members of the two benches created bedlam on the floor of the House for about half an hour,shouting slogans and waving placards,demanding Sens resignation and arrest.
Later,they walked out of the House and boycotted the debate on the governors address.We have decided to boycott Nirupam Sen as he is the mastermind behind the Sainbari massacre.Thats why we did not put any question to him on the power situation in the state either, opposition leader Partha Chatterjee and Congress legislature party leader Manas Bhunia said in a joint news conference later.
Sen was seen sitting in the House and laughing,possibly at the refusal of the opposition to pin him down on the precarious power situation in the state.But the Sainbari issue helped the opposition present a united face.Not only did Congress and Trinamool achieved floor coordination by jointly tabling an adjournment motion,the two parties held rallies in different parts of the state during the day,demanding punishment for those guilty of the Sainbari massacre.Congress organised a central rally at Burdwan town.
Chatterjee and Bhunia announced that their legislators would again table an adjournment motion jointly on March 19,demanding seizure of illegal arms in the state.According to them,these weapons are being held by CPM to attack members of opposition parties.
During question hour,several Left Front legislators,including CPM members,asked Sen why units in generating stations had collapsed and why people were facing power shortage.This is the examination season and students are complaining to us that we keep mum in the assembly while they are suffering, one of them said.Another said zari workers in Howrah could not work because of low voltage of power supplied to them.


The dilapidated house in Burdwan where the murders took place on March 17,1970 

Wednesday, March 3, 2010

My name is not Khan, I am Mr Kaul

Tarun Vijay, 22 December 2009, 08:55 AM IST
I am not Khan. My name bears a different set of four letters: K A U L. Kaul. As those who know Indian names would understand I happened to be born in a family which was called Hindu by others. Hence, we were sure, we would never get a friend like KJ to make a movie on our humiliations, and the contemptuous and forced exile from our homeland. It's not fashionable. It's fashionable to get a Khan as a friend and portray his agony and pains and sufferings when he is asked by a US private to take off his shoes and show his socks. Natural and quite justifiable that Khan must feel insulted and enraged. Enough Masala to make a movie.
But unfortunately I am a Kaul. I am not a Khan.
Hence when my sisters and mothers were raped and killed, when six-year-old Seema was witness to the brutal slaughtering of her brother, mother and father with a butcher's knife by a Khan, nobody ever came to make a movie on my agony, pain and anguish, and tears.
No KJ would make a movie on Kashmiri Hindus. Because we are not Khans.
We are Kauls.
When we look at our own selves as Kauls, we also see a macabre dance of leaders who people Parliament. Some of them were really concerned about us. They got the bungalows and acres of greenery and had their portraits were worshipped by the gullible devotees of patriotism.
They made reservations in schools and colleges for us. In many many other states. But never did they try that we go back to our homes. They have other priorities and 'love your jihadi neighborhood' programmes. They get flabbier and flabbier with the passing of each year, sit on sacks of sermons; issue instructions to live simply and follow moral principles delivered by ancestors and kept in documents treated with time-tested preservatives.
They could play with me because my name is Kaul. And not Mr Khan. I saw the trailer to this fabulous movie, which must do good business at the box office.
There was not even a hint that terror is bad and it is worse if it is perpetuated in the name of a religion that means Peace. Peace be upon all its followers and all other the creatures too.
So you make a movie on the humiliation of taking off shoes to a foreign police force which has decided not to allow another 9/11.
The humiliation of taking off the shoes and the urge to show that you are innocent is really too deep. But what about the humiliation of leaving your home and hearth and the world and the relatives and wife and mother and father? And being forced to live in shabby tents, at the mercy of nincompoop leaders encashing your misery and bribe-seeking babus? And seeing your daughters growing up too sudden and finding no place to hide your shame?
No KJ would ever come forward to make a movie, a telling, spine-chilling narration on the celluloid, of five-year-old Seema, who saw her parents and brother being slaughtered by a butcher's knife in Doda. Because her dad was not Mr Khan. He was one Mr Kaul.
Sorry, Mr Kaul and your entire ilk. I can't help you.
It's not fashionable to side with those who are Kauls. And Rainas. And Bhatts. Dismissively called KPs. KPs means Kashmiri Pandits. They are a bunch of communalists. They were the agents of one Mr Jagmohan who planned their exodus so that Khans can be blamed falsely. In fact, a movie can be made on how these KPs conspired their own exile to give a bad name to the loving and affectionate Khan brothers of the valley.
To voice the woes of Kauls is sinful. The right course to get counted in the lists of the Prime Minister's banquets and the President's parties is to announce from the roof top: hey, men and ladies, I am Mr Khan.
The biggest apartheid the state observes is to exclude those who cry for Kauls, wear the colours of Ayodhya, love the wisdom of the civilisational heritage, dare to assert as Hindus in a land which is known as Hindustan too and struggle to live with dignity as Kauls. They are out and exiled. You can see any list of honours and invites to summits and late-evening gala parties to toast a new brand. All that the Kauls are allowed is a space at Jantar Mantar: shout, weep and go back to your tents after a tiring demonstration.
Mr Kaul, you have got a wrong name.
A dozen KJs would fly to take you atop the glory - posts and gardens of sympathies if you accept to wear a Khan name and love a Sunita, Pranita, Komal or a Kamini. Well, here you have a sweetheart in Mandira. That goes well with the story.
And you pegged the movie plot on autism.
I wept. It was too much. I wept as a father of a son who needed a story as an Indian. Who cares for his autistic son, his relationship with the western world, his love affair with a young sweet something as a human, as someone whose heart goes beyond being a Hindu, a Muslim or a proselytizing Vatican-centric aggressive soul. Not the one who would declare in newspaper interviews: "I think I am an ambassador for Islam". Shah Rukh is Shah Rukh, not because he is an ambassador for Islam. If that was true, he could have found a room in Deoband. Fine enough. But he became a heartthrob and a famousl star because he is a great actor. He owes everything he has to Indians and not just to Muslims. We love him not because he is some Mr Khan. We love him because he has portrayed the dreams, aspirations, pains, anguish and ups and downs of our daily life. As an Indian. As one of us.
If he wants to use our goodwill and love for strengthening his image as an ambassador for Islam, will we have to think to put up an ambassador for Hindus? That, at least to me, would be unacceptable because I trust everyone: a Khan or a Kaul or a Singh or a Victor. Who represents India represents us all too, including Hindus. My best ambassadorship would be an ambassadorship for the tricolour and not for anything else because I see my Ram and Dharma in that. I don't think even an Amitabh or a Hritik would ever think in terms Shah Rukh has chosen for himself. But shouldn't these big, tall, successful Indians who wear Hindu names make a movie on why Kauls were ousted? Why Godhra occurred in the first place? Why nobody, yes, not a single Muslim, comes forward to take up the cause of the exiled and killed and contemptuously marginalized Kauls whereas every Muslim complainant would have essentially a Hindu advocate to take on Hindus as fiercely as he can?
If you are Mr Khan and found dead on the railway tracks, the entire nation would be shaken. And he was also a Rizwan. May be just a coincidence that our Mr Khan in the movie is also a Rizwan.
Rizwan's death saw the police commissioner punished and cover stories written by missionary writers. But if you are a Sharma or a Kaul and happened to love an Ameena Yusuf in Srinagar, you would soon find your corpse inside the police thana and NONE, not even a small-time local paper would find it worthwhile to waste a column on you. No police constable would be asked to explain how a wrongly detained person was found dead in police custody?
Because the lover found dead inside a police thana was not Mr Khan. No KJ would ever come forward to make a movie on 'My name is Kaul. And I am terror-struck by Khans'.
Give me back my identity as an Indian, Mr Khan and I would have no problem even wearing your name and appreciating the tender love of an autistic son.

Sunday, February 28, 2010

THE THIRD WAY

A Wholistic Bharathiya Approach to Development

 Back ground
          There are two dominant systems of development today. They are capitalism and communism. Both of them are of western origin. Therefore they advocate the western world view. 
          Capitalism strongly believes in a free market economy. It argues that people should be totally free to follow any economic activity. Individual economic freedom should be maximum and state intervention should be minimum. Capitalism strongly advocates private property. According to the advocates of  capitalism, a free enterprise and a free market economy, always ensures rapid economic development of the country and maximum welfare. 
          Communism on the contrary advocates total state control over all productive resources. It is strongly against private property and private enterprise. It advocates maximum state control over economic activities and minimum freedom to the individuals. Thus capitalism and communism appear to be diametrically opposed to one another. 
          However, on a closer scrutiny capitalism and communism are one and the same. Both of them consider man only as a bundle of desires. Nothing more than that. Both of them are materialist in the sense that satisfaction of physical needs is considered to be the only objective of human life. Artha and kama are the only two Purusharthas, according to them. Dharma and moksha – the spiritual aspects of human life are totally ignored by them. 
          Both of them lay emphasis upon material wealth.  The difference between them is restricted only to the question as to who should be the owner of wealth, the individual or the state. If your answer is individual, you are a capitalist and if your answer is the state, you are a communist. Hence communism is dubbed as state capitalism.
          Further both of them are `Homocentric’. They believe strongly that man is the centre of creations. Everything in Nature animate or inanimate is created for the enjoyment of Man. Thus capitalism and communism are the two faces of the same coin.
          Capitalism has a history of about 200 years and communism of about 80 years. 
          With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Mecca of communism – communism as a model of development has totally collapsed. Even China has bid good bye to communism. It is only namesake communist country. 
          The Global Financial and Economic crisis started in the U.S., the Mecca of Free Market Capitalism – in 2007, and spread like a swine flu to cover the whole world. Today even western economists have started arguing that the global economic crisis is a crisis of the system, rather than the crisis in the system. 
          Thus today, communism is dead and capitalism is dying. Today the whole world is facing the question, - Which is the third way? What is better alternative System of development? The world is at cross roads. It is in this background of the global crisis, we have to understand and discuss Sree Dattopanth Thengadiji’s classic work – `Third way’.
THIRD WAY 
First things first
         
 At the outset, Thengadiji puts before us certain conditions, which he calls, our major convictions,
1.   We do not think that Modernization is westernization: Due to over a century of brain washing through Macaulay system of English education, majority of Indians are habituated to believe that anything west is always best. To be modern our lifestyle and thought style should necessarily be western. However this is only a mental blockade. We must come out of it at the earliest and be prepared to think free of western biases. We must accept that modernization is not westernization and westernization is not modernization.
2.   We also do not think that anything western should be rejected simply because it is western. We are therefore in favour of assimilating knowledge from all peoples. Of course, we must scrutinize it in the light of our past traditions and present requirements and then decide, how much is to be adopted, and how much is to be rejected. Blind imitation of the west would only indicate bankruptcy of our native genius or acute inferiority complex.
3.   Socio economic conditions obtaining in the third world countries, including India are not similar to those obtaining in the western countries. Therefore these countries will have to find out their own respective paths to prosperity in the light of their respective traditions, conditions and requirements. In this connection he quotes Gurudev Rabindranath Tagore who said, “God has distributed different question papers to different countries.” So copying is of no use. One size does not fit all.
Summary
         
 Thengadiji summarizes the differences between the Western and the Hindu approach to development as follows.
           The WESTERN and the HINDU:- These are the two entirely different paradigms with their entirely different value–systems, institutional arrangements and parameters.

 WESTERN
HINDU
Compartmentalised thinking : 
Integrated thinking
Man – a mere material being :
Man – a physical-mental-Intellectual-spiritual being
Subservience to Artha-Kama :
Drive towards Purushartha Chatushtaya
 Society, a club of self-centered ndividuals :
Society, a body with all individuals therein as its limbs.
Happiness for oneself :
Happiness for all
Acquisitiveness :
  `Aparigraha’ (non-possession)
Profit motive :
Service motive
Consumerism :
Restrain consumption
Exploitation :
`antyodaya’
Rights-oriented consciousness of others’ duties :
Duty-oriented consciousness of others’ rights
Contrived scarcities :
Abundance of production
Economy of rising prices :
Economy of declining prices
Monopoly capitalism through various devices :
Free competition without manipulated markets
Economic theories centered  round wage-employment
Economic theories centered round self- employment
An ever-increasing army of the proletariat :
The ever-growing sector of Vishwakarma (Self-employment)
Ever-widening disparities :
Movement towards equitability and equality
The rape of Nature :
The milking of Mother Nature
Constant conflicts between the individual, the society and Nature :
 Complete harmony between the individual, the society and Nature
The Bharathiya Approach to Development
          
The Bharatiya tradition has prescribed Four objectives to be achieved by human beings. They are,
1.   Dharma
2.   Artha
3.   Kama
4.   Moksha
The arrangement of purusharthas is also highly meaningful. `Dharma’ being the first of the four purusharthas, happens to be the foundation of human life. `Moksha’ is the ultimate goal of attaining freedom from all worldly desires. Dharma and Moksha form the spiritual aspect of life. Sandwiched between dharma and moksha are Artha and Kama, which form the material aspect of life. Artha and Kama however essential to human life are corrosive in nature. Unless they are subjected to control and regulation by Dharma, they will demoralize man and ultimately destroy him. Therefore Artha and Kama are placed in between Dharma as the foundation and Moksha as the ultimate goal.

Thengadiji warns that the term Dharma should not be mistaken for religion. He quotes Justice Rama Jois who opines, “Therefore that which ensures welfare (of beings) is surely Dharma. The learned rishis have declared that, that which sustains is Dharma.” 

Differentiating between Religion and Dharma, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar says, “Religion is strictly personal affair, Dharma, a social one.” 

Bharatiya view is that human life is complete only when the material aspect is well integrated with the spiritual aspect. It neither neglects the material life, nor gives exclusive importance to it. Hence the Bharatiya approach to life is called integrated or Wholistic approach. The hindu sages do not consider Artha as an independent purushartha. Such an integrated approach is the speciality of Hindu thinking. Hindus had always felt that Education, Ecology, Economics, and Ethics must be taken into consideration in an integrated manner. 

The western mind, however considers Economics as a separate branch of knowledge. This is the compartmentalised thinking of the west. Moreover, the western economists argue that economics has nothing to do with Ethics or Dharma. `Greed is good’, happens to be their slogan.

The Bharatiya view, on the contrary is that Dharma or Ethics is superior to Artha. Economic activities should be conducted only according to the codes of Dharma. Hindu philosophy further says that Artha and Kama which are against Dharma should be given up.

The gross economic inequality found today among the developed and developing countries, exploitation of the third world countries, terrorism and development of weapons of mass destruction, critical environmental degradation and global economic crisis – are all due to the western practice of economics, free of Ethics. Therefore what the world needs today so badly is the Bharatiya Wholistic, Dharma based approach to development.
CONSUMPTION
Capitalism gives the greatest priority to consumption. It in fact considers consumption as the driving force of economic development. Ever increasing consumption or consumerism is accorded the topmost priority. This unrestricted consumption of resources advocated by the western economists, has resulted in serious degradation of the Earth’s environment. Deforestation, extinction of wild life, air and water pollution, ocean pollution, global warming, and so on are the different manifestations of environmental pollution, which is threatening the very survival of life on Earth. 

Bharatiya view on consumption is in total contrast to the western view. Our scriptures have always advocated restraint on consumption. In fact Ishavasya upanishat clearly states,
“Ishavasyam idam sarvam yathkincha jagathyaam jagath|
Thena thyakthena bhunjeetha, maagridah kasyasvith dhanam ||”

It advises people to consume (resources) moderately, leaving something to the future generations. Ishavasya warns that consuming wealth which belongs to the others amounts to stealing. It is only such moderation of consumption, which is called today, sustainable consumption. So, sustainable consumption, advocated by Bharatiya scriptures, only can save the world from environmental disaster.

Bharatiya view looks at all elements of Nature such as the soil, the mountains, the rivers and seas, the air, the plants and animals, as sacred and to be preserved and protected. Human beings are only a part of the Nature and not its master. This responsible attitude towards Nature is badly required by the world which is devastated by the western attitude to subjugate Nature. Western view is to exploit Nature, where as Bharatiya view is to milk the Nature.
A Blue print of development based on the Bharatiya model
Thengadiji in his work, gives a blue print of Development as enunciated by Sri Guruji at Thane Meet 1972.
1.   The basic needs of life must be available to every citizen.
2.   Material wealth is to be acquired, with the object of serving society which is but a manifestation of God, in the best possible ethical manner, and out of all that wealth, only the minimum should be used for our own purposes. Allow yourself only that much which is necessary to keep you in a condition to do service. To claim or to make a personal use of more than that is verily the act of theft against the society.
3.   Thus we are only the trustees of the society. It is only when we become true trustees that we can serve the society best.
4.   Consequently there must be some ceiling on the individual accumulation, and no person has a right to exploit someone else’s labor for personal profit.
5.   Vulgar, ostentatious and wasteful expenditure is a sin when millions are starving. There must be reasonable restrictions on all consumptions. `Consumerism’ is not compatible with the spirit of the Hindu culture.
6.   `Maximum production and equitable distribution’ should be our motto; national self-reliance our immediate goal.
7.   The problem of unemployment and under-employment must be tackled on a war footing.
8.   While industrialization is a must, it need not be the blind imitation of the west. Nature is to be milked but not killed. Ecological factors, balance of Nature and the requirements of the future generations should never be lost sight of. There should be an integrated thinking on education, ecology, economics and ethics.
9.   Greater stress should be laid on the labour-intensive rather than capital-intensive industries. 
10.      Our technologists should be required to introduce for the benefit of the artisans reasonably adaptable changes in the traditional techniques of production, without incurring the risk of increase in unemployment of workers, wastage of the available managerial and technical skills, and  decapitalization  of the existing means of production, and to evolve our own indigenous technology with emphasis on decentralization of the processes of production with the help of power, making home, instead of factory, the center of production .
11.      It is necessary of reconcile efficiency with employment expansion.
12.      Labour is also one form of capital in every industry. The labour of every worker should be evaluated in terms of share, and workers raised to the status of shareholders contributing labour as their share.
13.      Consumers’ interest is the nearest economic equivalent of national interest. Society is the third and more important party to all industrial relations. The current western concept of `collective bargaining’ is not consistent with this view. It should be replaced by some other terms, such as, `National commitment’, i.e. the commitment of both, the employers and the employees, to the Nation.
14.      The surplus value of labour belongs to the Nation.
15.      There need not be any rigidity about the pattern of industrial ownership. There are various patterns, such as, private enterprise, state ownership, co-operatives, municipal ownership self-employment, joint ownership (state and private), democratization etc. For each industry the pattern of ownership should be determined in the light of its peculiar characteristics and the total requirements of the national economy.
16.      We are free to evolve any variety of socio-economic order, provided it is in keeping with the basic tenets of Dharma.
17.     But changes in the super structure of the society will be of no use if the mind of every individual citizen is not moulded properly. Indeed, the system works ill or well according to the men who work it.
18.      Our view of relation between individual and society has always been, not one of conflict, but of harmony and co-operation, born out of consciousness of a single reality running through all individuals. The individual is a living limb of the corporate social personality.
19.      The samskaras of identification with the entire Nation constitute the real infra-structure of any socio-economic order.
Conclusion
          
The world today is ridden with two types of crises.
1.   Economic crisis and
2.   Environmental crisis.
They are closely related with one another. Bad economics practiced for over 200 years has resulted in Bad Environment threatening the very survival of Life on Earth.

So the time is ripe for a serious discussion and public debate on the Bharatiya  model of Development which is Wholistic and Ethical, as described by Thengadiji in his great work `Third way’.