Feb 2010 rh

Vol. 73 No 11

Download and read the journal at www.theradicalhumanist.com

Rs. 15 / month

THERADICALHUMANIST (Since April 1949)

FEBRUARY 2010

Formerly : Independent India (April 1937- March 1949)

Burkha: A Needless Controversy —R.A. Jahagirdar None Of The Above Voting: (NOTA) An Urgent Democratic Need —Rajinder Sachar

479

Regional Polarisation By Justice Sagheer’s Report —Balraj Puri Gods and Rockets: A Tale of Science in India —Austin Dacey The Copenhagen Stalemate —Mastram Kapoor

M.N. Roy Founder Editor

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

FEBRUARY 2010

The Radical Humanist

Download and read the journal at www.theradicalhumanist.com

Vol. 73 Number 11 February 2010

—Contents—

Monthly journal of the Indian Renaissance Institute Devoted to the development of the Renaissance Movement; and for promotion of human rights, scientific-temper, rational thinking and a humanist view of life.

Founder Editor: M.N. Roy Contributory Editors: Professor Amlan Datta Professor A.F. Salahuddin Ahmed Justice R.A. Jahagirdar (Retd.)

Dr. R.M. Pal Professor Rama Kundu Editor: Dr. Rekha Saraswat Publisher: Mr. N.D. Pancholi Printer: Mr. N.D. Pancholi Send articles to: Dr. Rekha Saraswat C-8, Defence Colony Meerut, 250001, U.P., India Ph. 91-121-2620690, 09719333011 E-mail articles at: rheditor@gmail.com Send Subscription / Donation Cheques to: Mr. Narottam Vyas (Advocate), Chamber Number 111 (Near Post Office) Supreme Court of India, New Delhi, 110001, India n.vyas@snr.net.in Ph. 91-11-22712434, 91-11-23782836, 09811944600 In favour of: ‘The Radical Humanist’ Sometimes some articles published in this journal may carry opinions not similar to the radical humanist philosophy; but they would be entertained here if the need is felt to debate and discuss upon them. —Rekha

1. From the Editor’s Desk: The Movement Impasse —Rekha Saraswat 1 2. Contributory Editors’ Section: Burkha: A Needless Controversy —R.A. Jahagirdar 2 3. Guests’ Section: Gods and Rockets: A Tale of Science in India —Austin Dacey 5 The Copenhagen Stalemate —Mastram Kapoor 8 4. Current Affairs: None of the above Voting (NOTA): An Urgent Democratic Need —Rajindar Sachar 11 Regional Polarisation by Justice Sagheer’s Report —Balraj Puri 13 62nd. World Newspapers Congress —N.K. Acharya 15 5. IRI / IRHA Members’ Section: Political History of Andhra Pradesh —N. Innaiah 16 No to Social Darwinism —Bipin Shroff 21 6. Student’s & Research Scholar’s Section: The Appeal of Rationalism to a Thinking Mind —Nihar Ranjan Acharya 24 7. Book Review Section: Beyond Bhopal —Dipavali Sen 26 A Reasonably accurate account of Indian history —R.M. Pal 28 8. Humanist News: 34

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

From the Editor’s Desk:

The Movement Impasse! six years have Fifty passed since Roy died on 25th January in 1954.

And, if, we also add the years since Roy decided to wind up the Radical Democratic Party (RDP) in 1946 to develop a renascent movement, it is almost 64 years now!

But it appears that we have yet, not been able to define to ourselves the kind of Movement he had envisaged for us ten years more than half a century ago. We still stand where we had begun!

We are as confused and as lost, as bewildered and as hurt, as desperate and as anxious as our veterans were in 1946 when Roy had announced that he was quitting his candidature from the political power game. Most of us were aghast not knowing which way our caravan would go!

The problem was more acute for those of us who were committed field-workers, enthusiastic opinion seekers and sincere plan implementers. The irony was that the number of such dedicated work-force was the maximum; as it usually is in any political party; because it totally depends upon these faithful grass-root workers who are groomed to take commands to execute them amongst the masses, without questioning and without doubting.

Asking and expecting such people to sit with books and indulge in endless philosophical and intellectual deliberations and discourses was too unrealistic. In fact, Roy did not directly expect any one to do so to prove their faithfulness to him. He was rather apprehensive that most of them would not be happy with his decision to quit direct public life and so he was prepared to walk out alone of the RDP. But, this step in the dialectical process of his own growing up made him unavailable and unapproachable to most of his followers.

The truthful supporters of RDP suddenly felt useless, Rekha Saraswat

FEBRUARY 2010 defeated and cheated. They were at that turn of age where they had already formed an ideal in Roy and had no stamina, enthusiasm and freshness left to search for another lamp-post to seek a new mentor’s kindly light.

Situation was definitely grim for them.

Asking such people to sit and contemplate about the problems of this world, to find solutions and then to go out and apply them in their surrounding communities was asking too much from those simple, honest, sincere and devoted fellowmen who had hearts of gold with surmounting passions to do something for their guru but did not know how and where to begin.

Thus, gradually, the bulk of the RDP workers began to remain away from the scene; they stayed at home with a rich heritage of nostalgic memories of the times when they were most wanted and with lost emotions of the days when they were almost about to remake our country and this world.

As the legacy persists many of us still feel that our Movement continues to be in a quandary!

There are many new kinds of perplexities that have arisen out of our expectations to judge our movement from so many viewpoints other than the renaissance perspective. To define these confusions let each one of us undergo the exercise of asking ourselves the following questions.

Are we a social service institution?

Are we a human rights’ activist group?

Are we a socio-economic pressure group?

Are we a politically motivated interest group?

Are we a literary-cultural society?

Are we a counseling alliance?

Are we an easy-chair intellectual association?

Are we a student-guiding establishment?

Are we an anti-religion activist assemblage?

Are we community peace-makers?

Are we society’s moral code setters?

Are we an organisation of field-workers and volunteers?

I can very well imagine the reactions of our friends in the radical and other humanist groups while going through these questions. I am not giving this editorial a logical end by wrapping up my observations here because I would like to keep the answers open from my side till the next month with a hope of getting innumerable rejoinders, feed-backs and responses from you to assist me in giving it a just conclusion that had heard all sides!

1

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

FEBRUARY 2010

Contributing Editor’s Section:

R.A. Jahagirdar

[Justice R.A. Jahagirdar (Retd.), former President of Indian Radical Humanist Association and former Editor of ‘The Radical Humanist’ is now one of the members of the Contributing Editorial Board of The Radical Humanist.]

Burkha: A needless Controversy

According Tantawy

to Sheikh Mohammad Saed we are making a needless controversy upon the BURKHAThis article is appearing late, but it needs to be written and must be made known to all rational minds.

On 22nd June, 2009, the President of France, Mr. Nicolas Sarkozy, addressing the French Parliament, damned the Burkha characterizing it a symbol of feminine servitude.

He also declared that it was not welcome in France. A law passed in 2004, in fact, bars Muslim girls from wearing the hijab in Government schools. By and large, students from other religious backgrounds are also barred from wearing any conspicuous display of religions symbols. It must be remembered that there are today, according to one estimate, five million Muslims in France. They are mostly from Algeria. Algeria today is a secular country, which was formerly a colony or Department of France. Recently laws have been passed in some European countries putting restrictions on Muslim woman’s garments. Incidentally, in the year 1905, France had adapted a total secular Constitution de-linking the State from the Church which had formerly an all pervasive presence in the State.

2

If Nicolas Sarkozy had not spoken on the subject and the French Parliament had quietly passed a law barring the wearing of Burkha, the world would not have bothered about it. Because of Sarkozy’s public pronouncement, there were loud verbal protests from some Muslims, especially clerics who are thoroughly ignorant of the theory or practice of Burkha. The practice of wearing Burkha is prohibited even in some Muslim countries as Tunisia. Muslim women all over the world are just like other women without feeling the necessity of wearing any dress to distinguish their Muslim identity. No doubt, Muslims in some countries do wear a niqab (a total covering, except the eyes) or a Burkha, out of habit or compulsion. Nobody has shown any authority in support of Burkha.

One Bombay Magazine has quoted Professor Zeenat Shaukat Ali as having said that Burkha is more about culture than religion. She did not pose, let alone answer, the question that why is it that Burkha, to the extent it is prevalent, is only among the Muslims than in any other community. No community in the world, cultural or otherwise, sanctioned Burkha for woman. It is essentially a Muslim habit, probably born out of ignorance or of wrong interpretation of Quran or of compulsion by men. Prof. Zeenat Ali has to explain why it is confined to Muslims.

Worse still is the statement of Muslim Cleric Maulana Abu Hassan Nadvi Azhari that “Islamic scholars across the world have unanimously held that burkha is a religious symbol” (quoted in the same journal). Where is it mentioned in any scripture that Burkha must be worn by Muslim women? Has any religious authority issued any fatwa?

Let us see the practices around the world. Indonesia is the largest Muslim State. Women there also do not don Burkha. Only in some part of Indonesia, there are few non-Muslims. The country is predominantly Islamic. If Burkha were culturally or religiously associated with Islam or Muslims, you would be noticing women wearing Burkhas in Indonesia. Meghavati Sukarno, who became the President of Indonesia, could be seen without Burkha.

India, next, has the largest Muslim population of the world. Though here and there you see Burkha-clad women, Burkha is not the normal wear of Indian Muslim women who have, in fact, protested against any

THE RADICAL HUMANIST compulsion for wearing Burkha. Women work in offices, hospitals, etc., wearing normal clothes which are worn by non-Muslims. You cannot work in an office or as a doctor wearing a Burkha. There is Sania Mirza who travels all over the world for playing tennis. She wears dresses as required by the game. So do other Muslims who are sports persons. It is not necessary to mention Shabana Azmi or Taslima Nasreen of Bangladesh who are well known non-believers. They will not cover.

Have you ever been to Kashmir? Not a single woman dons Burkha. Kashmiri women work outdoors and share work with men. You stand in front of a college and see the girls coming out. You will see them wearing Salwar-Khameez; you will not see Burkha. For some time because of the fear of fundamentalist bodies like Lashkar-e-Jabbar, Burkhas and hijabs were seen. In no time, however, they went out. Tourist traffic is often attended to by women.

Kashmiri culture does not allow Burkha. In the rural areas, most women work in the open fields. They can be seen in knee-deep paddy fields. How can they work in these conditions? They are now living in 21st Century – not in the seventh. Women do not need protection now as they did in the unsettled conditions of 7th Century. In the rest of India one can see Muslim women going about in saris. Zia-ul-Haq, the dictator of Pakistan who died in 1988, called it un-Islamic to wear a sari and had banned it in Pakistan. After his death it has returned.

Pakistan is an Islamic country. If Burkha were closely connected with the culture of Islam, women there would be going about in Burkha. You see the news readers on T.V., doctors who work in the hospitals, politicians addressing public meetings and the Parliament. Where is the Burkha? Benazir Bhutto became the Prime Minister without going anywhere near Burkha. When you watch Pakistan T.V., you do not see any woman wearing Burkhas. Of course, Taliban may change all that. It is reported that a senior Judge in Pakistan has ordered women lawyers not to wear veils in Court rooms. The Chief Justice of Peshawar High Court, the bastion of orthodoxy, told a woman lawyer “You are professionals and should be dressed as required of lawyers.” Muslim women are no longer orthodox. It is woman’s instinct to be attractive, to be seen attractive – not necessarily to attract. Even Burkha clad women are not free from this instinct. If you pass by a woman wearing Burkha, you

FEBRUARY 2010 will be immediately overwhelmed by some perfume.

Beneath her Burkha, while going out, the woman has smeared herself with perfume of some kind.

If you are next to a Persian lady going to Iran, the same is your experience. She is wearing jeans. When the plane is nearing Teheran, she immediately puts on Chador – a dress prescribed by the moral police of Iran, after the 1979 Revolution. Ayatollah Khomeini dictated Chador, not Burkha.

It is only in Saudi Arabia that women wear or are forced to wear Burkhas. It is probably due to the influence of Wahhabis. Wahhabi influence envelopes Saudi Arabia.

All over the world, women are getting liberated.

Muslims no less. They do not want to wear cumbersome clothes – Burkhas least of them. Maybe, some small Section of Muslim women cover themselves with Burkha. Pratibha Patil, when she was the Governor of Rajasthan, said famously: “The purdah was introduced during Mughal rule to save women from Mogul invaders”. After Moguls, the English have ruled over India for 200 years. The English were progressive people and were not definitely after Rajasthani women.

Purdah did not vanish. The truth of the matter is that even today women pull “ghungat” over their faces in front of elders and strangers which they were wearing even during Mogul rule. Rajasthani women never wore purdahs.

Other parts of India show different ways. Women wear saris. In north India women wear Salwar-Khamiz. In South India they wear saris – Maharashtrians in one way, Gujaratis in another way. In Tamilnadu still another way. Till when Rabindranath was a boy, Bhadra Lok women in Bengal did not put on blouses. Covering themselves either by dupatta or by the end of saris is the minimum one expects of modesty on the part of women.

Different parts of India – different traditions! If Burkha is not a mandate of religion, it is also not anti-secular.

Fadela Amara, a Muslim woman of Algerian descent, now in France, calls Burkha a coffin which kills the fundamental rights of women. A woman going about in Burkha is immediately recognized as a woken in a multi-lateral society. In 21st Century, a woman does not need a bulletproof vest or a fabric fortress. Women, even Muslim women, are following different vocations which are inimical to Burkha unless it is mandated by religion.

Quran does not mandate Burkha when it says:

3

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

FEBRUARY 2010

“O Children of Adam, we have provided with garments to cover your bodies as well as for luxury. But the best garment is the garment of righteousness. These are some of God’s signs; that they may take heed.” (7.26) And in a later Sura (24-31), Quran says: “And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; they should not display their beauty and modesty…”

Quran prohibits women from attracting men by tinkling their ornaments. Sura 33, verse 59, says: “O Prophet, Tell Thy wives and daughters And believing women, that they should cast their garments over their persons (when abroad) that is most convenient, that they should be known (As such) and not molested And God is oft-forgiving, most merciful.”

Yusuf Ali says that this rule was not absolute. Elsewhere mention is made that women should not indulge in practices which would attract attention. That was 7th Century when such guidance was given. We are in the 21st Century. Even in Hadith there is not a single instance in support of Burkhas. So we cannot take support of obedience to religious scriptures in the case of Burkha. A ban on burkha will not be an infringement upon religious freedom. At most, it will be interference with tradition rightly or wrongly followed in some countries for some time.

Some arguments in support of Burkha may be noted. The security argument is misplaced. A woman is attracting the attraction of a rapist if one is roaming about. A woman is treated as a sex object. Burkha is not a fortress.

Is it convenient? It hampers your movements. Male colleagues are often repelled by a woman who is thus secluding herself.

It is a women’s choice! Yes, she makes a conscious, reasoned choice. The choice we are talking of is the choice of compulsion of her husband or of society. It is not a free choice. It deprives a woman of light and air. It is unhygienic.

‘Religion’ argument is hypocritical. Neither Quran nor Hadith supports such a practice. In fact, one might say that in a country the mandate to wear Burkha interferes with her right and even religion.

No one is more knowledgeable than the Al Azar University about Quran. It is the oldest Muslim University. Muslim students flock to it from all over the world. The teachers are all great Islamic scholars.

Egypt’s highest Muslim authority has said that he will issue a religious edict against the growing (?) trend for full women’s veils or the niqab. Sheikh Mohammad Tantawy, dean of the University, called full face veiling a custom that has nothing to do with Islamic faith. Seeing a girl in a school wearing a niqab, the Grand Imam ordered her to remove her face veil. The Minister for Higher Education has decided to ban women wearing niqab from entering University residences.

It was not necessary to become touchy about Burkha.

Already Muslims are realizing that it has no religious mandate. Women are realizing that if they have to play a liberated role in society in 21st Century, they cannot afford to don Burkha. Today an overwhelming number of Muslim women do not observe it. It will fade away.

Letter to the Editor RH 478 Dear Rékhâ, In France, I have come across several friends from Corsica, from the Basque region, even from Brittany who cannot heartily call themselves French and they dream of separate states. They forget that the mosaic formed by such minorities give a specific character to a country. India has been a wonderful experiment in this field and we cannot go on Balkanizing a country indefinitely.

Glad to learn that Ms Dorothy North is carrying on her research on the Evelyn episode of Roy’s life. Years ago I had sent Shri N. Innaiah a copy of Evelyn’s letter from Moscow, as she was disappointed about the Bengali opposition to Roy. I do not know whether he made use of it.

Warm regards.

Prithwin-dâ (Prithwindra Mukherjee, France)

4

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

Guests’ Section:

Austin Dacey [Dr. Austin Dacey, Ph.D., is former director of Science and the Public, a program of the Center for Inquiry and State University of New York at Buffalo, and author of several articles and books, including The Secular Conscience. He holds a doctorate in applied ethics and social philosophy and has taught most recently at Polytechnic Institute of New York University. This article was published in the “Skeptical Inquirer” in two parts. Following is the first part. The second will be published in the March 2010 issue. Friends are requested to send their comments liberally upon it to me for the RH or they may directly post their comments on the RH Website.—Editor]

Gods and Rockets: A Tale of Science in India (Part I) are afraid that the thunder-storms might “We have an impact on the scheduled launch.” The Chairman of the Indian Space Research Organization, G. Madhavan Nair, was speaking to reporters in Tirupathi on the morning of May 5, 2005, as the countdown continued for the Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle, a 140-foot rocket loaded with two satellites. Still, he said, he remained optimistic that lift off would occur as planned at 10:19 am.

Nair had reason for confidence. Since 1993 the Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle, or PSLV, had been a success story of India’s space program. What’s more, earlier that morning Nair and more than a dozen other top space scientists had visited the Tirupati temple of Lord

FEBRUARY 2010 Venkateswara, where they laid a miniature prototype of the PSLV-C6 at the feet of the deity (a form of the sustainer-god Vishnu also known as Lord Balaji) and offered prayers for a successful mission.

Was this some kind of prank? Was it a symbolic gesture, intended in fact not for Balaji but instead for the more earthbound audience of the public, a Hindu equivalent of those prayer breakfasts that U.S. presidents cannot seem to go without? Or did the scientists actually believe in Balaji? Did they consider the temple ritual a proper part of their public scientific activities?

Indian Scientists Under Study: This last question has been put to India’s scientific community as part of a national survey of professional scientists released last year by Trinity College’s Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society in cooperation with the Center for Inquiry-India, headquartered not far from Tirupathi in Hyderabad (full disclosure: I had a hand in coordinating the project while at Center for Inquiry). The first-of-its-kind study, entitled Worldviews and Opinions of Scientists: India 2007-2008, gathered responses to an email questionnaire from 1,100 participants at 130 universities and research institutes.1 The results reveal a fascinating portrait of science and religion in the subcontinental context.

Most readers of Skeptical Inquirer have committed to memory the figures from the famous 1998 survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences in the U.S.: only 7.5 percent of physicists and astronomers and 5.5 percent of biological scientists believe in a personal deity.2 By contrast, Worldviews found that most Indian scientists are believers. Only one-fourth are non-theists, while 66 percent identified as Hindu. Half hold that homeopathy and prayer are efficacious; 90 percent approve of the offering of university degrees in Ayurvedic medicine, a traditional practice that prescribes various herbs, oils, and spices to bring the diseased back into balance with the universe. The blessing of rocket launches turned out to be relatively contentious, with 41 percent approving the 2005 event and 46 disapproving (the remaining 13 percent were not sure what they thought about it).

The Worldviews survey sparked plenty of conversation, especially in the Indian press, about whether such attitudes are defensible or whether they are a dangerous

5

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

FEBRUARY 2010

betrayal of the civic duty—mentioned in the national constitution—to cultivate a “scientific temper.”

However, the survey did not attempt to explain why it is that so many Indian scientists cleave to non-naturalistic worldviews, as compared to their American counterparts. After all, the rates of religiosity in the Indian and American general populations are not so dramatically different.

Was this simply a case of Pascal’s Wager: Ignore Venkateswara, thereby risking his displeasure and aeronautical disaster; or supplicate Venkateswara, thereby risking nothing and possibly gaining favor? One classic objection to Pascal—the so-called Many Gods objection—points out that the wagering party, who resorts to a gamble precisely because he lacks conclusive evidence about the divine, cannot know which of all the possible gods might exist, and therefore which he might be enraging by wagering on another (to say nothing of the possibility of a supreme being who smites all those and only those who believe just to escape a smiting).3 The unimaginable pluralism of India, with its 22 official languages and thousands of castes, extends to its supernatural precincts as well, with over 200,000 gods and goddesses crowding temples and rickshaw triptychs. Many Gods with a vengeance! In this case, one might worry about Indra, formerly the king of the gods who was demoted to running the weather and who is quite possibly disgruntled about it. As with India’s infamous bureaucracy, the trouble may lie in figuring out which official to propitiate.

Science and reactionary modernism: A more general (if not generalizing) explanation of Indian scientists’ worldviews would point to the syncretism of Indian thought on the whole. Not unlike its urban centers, where livestock jostle with stockbrokers and illiterate rural immigrants mix with techno-billionaires, India’s religious, scientific, and philosophical minds appear capable of housing a wild admixture of seemingly incongruent occupants. The expansiveness of Hindu cosmogony, already noted by me and numerous other commentators, always leaves room for another entity with its own compartmentalized jurisdiction. You can have your quarks and Vishnu too; they’re all Brahma in the end somehow.

During the colonial era, Indian intellectuals lived amid ambivalent attitudes to the European scientific tradition

6

and the Enlightenment outlook associated with it.

According to Meera Nanda, a philosopher of science and a consultant on the Worldviews study, although many of these thinkers and social reformers looked to “the West” for the tools they needed to bring their country into modernity, they at the same time sought to vindicate the value of the indigenous. Nanda explains, keen to assert their national pride against the colonizers, these intellectuals tended to subsume the new ideas into the unreformed tradition. Rather than agitate against those elements of the inherited tradition that negated the content and the spirit of the modern worldview, neo-Hindu intellectuals began to find homologies between the new worldview of science, liberalism, and even Christian ideas of monotheism, and the high-Brahminical Vedic literature, especially the philosophy of non-dualism.4 In contemporary politics, one can find a similar pattern of “reactionary modernism” taken to the extreme in the discourse rightwing Hindu nationalism: . . . Hindu nationalism asserts itself not by rejecting the modern ideas of democracy, secularism, and scientific reason, but by aggressively restating them in a Hindu civilizational idiom. The champions of Hindu nationalism pretend to set themselves apart from their Islamic and Christian counterparts by claiming to be enlightened champions of democracy, secularism, science, all of which they claim to find in the perennial wisdom of the Vedas, Veda-nta, and in the original, uncorrupted Vedic institution of four varnas or castes.5 In practice, then, the discourse of science and modernity can be impressed into the service of a reactionary agenda that re-asserts a traditional Hindu social order and national identity. In her excellent book Prophets Facing Backwards, Nanda documents a convergence with postmodern critiques that would make science a culturally specific narrative. On this view, India has its own authentically saffron-colored science. Ayurveda is literally a “science of life”; the celebrated tolerance of Hinduism means remaining open to the utility of astrology.

It is just this kind of thinking that alarms Nanda and Innaiah Narisetti, the chairman of Center for Inquiry-India, who told the Sunday Hindustan Times in 2008, “It is disturbing to see scientists touching the feet of godmen and taking replicas of rockets before their

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

FEBRUARY 2010

launch to the Tirupati temple. If scientists do these things, what message will it send to the general public?”6 A widening debate: As it happened, that morning in May the PSLV-C6 blasted off on time and placed its two satellites into polar sun-synchronous orbits roughly 18 minutes later, thanks to the dedication of its team of technicians and engineers. Nair might just as well have offered his prayers to Robert Goddard. One of the satellites deployed was HAMSAT, which would relay the signals of ham radio operators. Its launch represented the government’s recognition of the critical role played by the amateur radio community in coordinating disaster management in the wake of supercyclones and tsunamis.

PSLV-6 also put into orbit the solar-powered CARTOSAT-1, which was carrying two earth-imaging cameras capable of high-resolution applications in agriculture, water-management, and cartography.

A survey of the landscape of Indian thought and scientific opinion makes one thing clear. Rationalists cannot simply insist on the value of cultivating a scientific temper. The debate now turns on the very meaning of science. Until recently this debate has largely been internal to India, but that may be changing.

We now have the Worldviews survey. Meanwhile, Amartya Sen has been pressing for more cosmopolitan models of Indian identity.7 And thanks to Narisetti,

there is now a Telegu translation of the first chapter of Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion.

Still, real philosophical work remains to be done at a smaller scale of analysis. Is it possible to harmonize the notion of argument by analogy, so important in classical Indian logic and epistemology since 7th century B.C.E, with post-Galilean quantitative methods and contemporary accounts of induction and evidentiary confirmation? And what could it mean to say that any mode of inquiry belongs to one civilization or another in the first place?

Notes: 1. See worldviewsofscientists.org.

2. Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham, Leading Scientists Still Reject God. Nature 1998; 394, 313.

3. For a critical discussion of the Many Gods Objection, see Jeff Jordan, Pascal’s Wager: Pragmatic Arguments and Belief in God (Oxford: Claredon Press, 2006).

4. Meera Nanda, Prophets Facing Backwards: Postmodern Critiques of Science and Hindu Nationalism in India (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press), 46-47.

5. Ibid., 38.

6. C. Sujit Chandra Kumar, Is HE for real? Sunday Hindustan Times, June 22, 2008.

7. See Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny (New York: W.W. Norton, 2006).

The Radical Humanist—Rates Of Advertisement/InsertionJournal Size:18cm x 24cm-Print Area:15cm x 20cm Ordinary Second Back Cover Rs. 2,500 Last Cover

Rs. 3,000

Special Rs. 3,000

Rs. 2,500

Quarter page

Rs. 900

nd

For One Year 2 Back Cover Rs. 20,000 Rs. 30,000 Last Cover

Rs. 25,000

Ordinary Page: Full Page Rs. 15,000 Quarter Page Rs.6,000

Special

Third Back Cover

Rs. 2,500

Rs. 3,000

Half Page

Rs. 1,000

Rs. 3,500

Ordinary Page: Full Page Rs. 2,000 Rs. 600

Ordinary

rd

3 Back Cover

Rs. 20,000

Rs. 1,500

Rs. 30,000

Rs. 30,000 Rs. 20,000 Rs. 9,000

Half Page

7

Rs. 10,000

Rs. 15,000

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

Mastram Kapoor [Mr. Mastram Kapoor is a freelance writer and journalist in Hindi. He has written, edited and translated more than 100 books and pamphlets on literature, social and political thought, education and children’s literature including 11 volumes of documents on freedom movement and 17 volumes of collected works of Dr. Lohia. He has had a long association with the socialist movement. His special interests of study are Mahatma Gandhi, Dr. Rammanohar Lohia, Jaiprakash Narayan, Acharya Narendra Deva, Madhu Limaye and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.

Mr_kapoor22@ymail.com Ph. 91-11-22710479]

The Copenhagen Stalemate the failure of the climate summit at After Copenhagen in December, 2009 and the simultaneous death of the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 as well as the Bali plan of Action of 2007, the world seems to be relying on hope that the doomsday being predicted will turn out to be a damp squib like so many earlier predictions of the doomsday. But the man cannot be an ostrich to bury his head in the sand and forget about the imminent death. He must find out the way to ward off the coming danger. He cannot wish and wait for this day of collective death.

If we ponder over the fact that this ecological crisis has been creeping along with food crisis, health crisis, unemployment and poverty crisis all over the world, except in some rich pockets, man’s common sense will try to order things in the present world in such a way as would suggest a logical strategy to meet the crises and save the humanity.

FEBRUARY 2010 Attempts were made in this direction by some great minds in the middle of the last century, especially after witnessing the massive destruction of the Second World War. Foremost among them was Mahatma Gandhi who had been aware of the lurking dangers, both ecological and of human poverty. In his book Hind Swaraj written in 1909, he warned against indiscriminate destruction of nature in the name of development in the form of industrialization and urbanization. He also cautioned against the mad race for consumerism. His message that there is sufficient in the world to satisfy everyone’s need but not to satisfy everyone’s greed, was not taken seriously by Western countries who were developing their industries and increasing their consumption by exploiting their colonies. They paused for a brief moment when the great depression struck and started tightening their belts but soon the world was pushed into a do and die struggle and every good idea was blown into the dust of gun powder. However, after the end of the war a search for a new world order began. On the one hand there were great humanitarians like Albert Einstein, Bertrand Russel, George Bernard Shaw, Pearl Buck, Scott Buchanan, Henery Usborn, Cord Mayor, Dr. Rammanohar Lohia and others who dreamed of a world order based on world parliament elected on adult vote of every member of the human society, a world government elected from the world parliament on rotation basis and a world development authority to which every country would contribute a certain percentage of its income and from which every country would withdraw according to its needs. A World Government Foundation was also set up for this purpose with a donation of one million dollars by a rich American lady Mrs Anita McCormic Blain. This movement became for some time, a craze of the post-world-war generations and hundreds and thousands of people declared themselves world citizens.

On the other hand, the victorious nations of the Second World-War hatched an arrangement in the form of a toothless United Nations Organization, Security Council with veto power to its five permanent members and the World Bank, IMF and Gatt (Now WTO) to control the world and its economy. This world order was run with hubris by the victorious nations especially the biggest of them possessed with the result that the world has reached the precipice.

8

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

FEBRUARY 2010

Some intellectuals have started to look back to find out if for resolving the present crisis past thinkers like Marx, Keynes or Gandhi could be invoked. It is in this context that Dr. Rammanohar Lohia, who was the most fertile Gandhian socialist thinker of post-independence India, becomes relevant today. In his famous treatise on Marx, entitled ‘Economics After Marx’, he has suggested that the kind of capitalist development that took place in the developed countries need not and should not be repeated in the third world countries. The main reason, he said, was that this kind of development entailed ecological destruction including killing of human beings on mass scale, which the developed countries did mostly in their colonies but which the third world countries could not do under any circumstances. He, therefore, suggested for the third world countries including countries like India and China, a kind of development which could be achieved with the help of small machine technology which would be more labour-intensive rather than capital-intensive and more eco-friendly. Unfortunately the leaders of new emerging nations of Asia and Africa were blind followers of the Western countries and their model of development which depended more and more on exploitation of natural resources and which created more and more natural imbalance. They are now insisting that they have a right to equalize their level of development with western countries with the same high-tech. industrialization even if they have to colonize their own people. This is sheer madness.

On the other hand, the developed countries which are addicted to highly consumerist life-style facilitated by the exploits of imperialism, are neither prepared to make any adjustment in their way of life nor are willing to sacrifice their profits. They want to preserve their standard of life as well as hegemony over others. This is another kind of madness. Dr. Lohia foresaw conflict between the developed and developing countries. In his speech at Nashville on July 14, 1951, while he was on visit to America, described it thus: “Some areas of the world have created large part of the material and cultural goods of the world and want to preserve what they have created and on the other hand, the large part of the world is not creating such goods but is striving to create”, and suggested that ‘those who want to preserve what they have created must help others to create by inventing and supplying to them machines, tools and technology which they would need for their development.”

9

If the developing countries had adopted the model of development based on small machine technology requiring less capital and less energy and using more labour to substitute the capital, they would not only have solved the problem of unemployment but also of pollution of their environment. This would also have saved the developed countries from the crisis of unemployment, depression and GHG emissions since to meet the demand of the third world countries, they would have to produce less energy consuming simple and easy to control small machines and tools instead of heavy machines and war material consuming high quantity of energy. The massive and unending demand of the third world countries would have kept their factories going, providing employment to their labour force and warding off economic depression and this would have reduced the energy consumption and resultant carbon emissions in developing as well as developed countries.

After the stalemate at Copenhagen, the world seems to be simply waiting for the catastrophe. But if we try to appreciate Dr. Lohia, even at this stage, there is some hope for redeeming the situation. The terrible divide between the rich and the poor and the level of poverty at its worst, call for a new approach to the problems of the mankind. If this world is one family, as is often claimed, we must adapt ourselves to the family ethics in which earning and non-earning members are treated equally at least in the matter of their minimum needs. For fulfillment of the minimum needs of the two-third humanity we must adapt ourselves with new model development as suggested by Dr. Lohia, using small and simple technology which may consume less energy but provide more employment to people and which must preserve the ecological balance by establishing a relation of co-existence rather than of hostility, with the nature as conceived by Mahatma Gandhi. There is a limitless scope for this kind of development activities in the present world and this can provide a permanent solution of our present crisis.

It is most likely that developed world will not pay attention to the above mentioned suggestion. Not only because, this world doesn’t care much for either Gandhi or Lohia, but also because these countries are not going to change their life style, reduce their wants and consumption. If they can wage unnecessary wars to protect and maintain their way of life, they can also let

THE RADICAL HUMANIST the two-third humanity perish from natural disasters. But India, the land of Gandhi and Lohia must not remain passive and see the world go through the human tragedies. It, therefore, depends on India to take unilateral action, if the world is not prepared, to change its model of development. Instead of competing with America or China in GDP growth etc., it must put all projects of such development on back-burner and start work to provide food and basic amenities to 80 percent of its population living on Rs20 per day. Let this be our first priority and first test of our progress as Mahatma Gandhi had visualized. India is such a big country that it is capable of sustaining itself even if it severs its relations with the present hegemonic global set up and chalk out its own path towards a new model of development as was suggested by Dr. Lohia in the speech referred to above. He said, “The solution lies in revising our notions of civilization, especially as to the kind of technical equipment which is necessary. If we

FEBRUARY 2010 are to force ourselves out of the rut into which we have fallen, we must change the goal of an ever-increasing standard of living to that of a decent standard of living.

Today, anyone to be listened to must pay homage to mass production and its system, but I suggest that twenty years hence anyone who wants to benefit mankind must operate inside the concept of a descent standard of living.�

It is beyond imagination that the present rulers of this country with their slavish mentality towards the western powers will have the courage to switch over to new path but the peoples’ movement should be geared towards this goal so that a new a force could emerge to take over the steering wheel. Thousands of people are already engaged in this task in various movements to protect environment and human rights of the threatened humanity. Let them also join hands in transforming the present political culture into one that is suited for this epochal change.

10

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

FEBRUARY 2010

Current Affairs:

Rajindar Sachar [Justice Rajindar Sachar is Retd. Chief Justice of High Court of Delhi, New Delhi. He is UN Special Rapportuer on Housing, Ex. Member, U.N. Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities and Ex-President, Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) India.]

None of the above Voting (NOTA): An Urgent Democratic Need recent legislation by Gujarat Government Theto make voting compulsory at Local Election Level has elicited mixed response. There is no doubt that there are weighty reasons against making voting compulsory, and the effective mechanism to supervise makes the task still more difficult. But it is some what surprising that almost no attention has been paid to the provision of Negative Voting or ‘None of the above’ right given to the voters by the same legislation – this right means that if a person does not approve of any candidate selected by the party cabal, he should not have to choose the least undesirable or sit at home sulking and cursing the law. In a vibrant democracy the voter should be able to hit effectively at all the political parties to show that all the candidates selected by them are undesirable.

The principle of ‘None of the above’ is that whereas the government should secure the consent of the governed, at the same time legitimate consent requires the ability to with hold consent. It is also recognized that the provision of NOTA ‘None of the above’ in election law will enable

11

and encourage voters to participate in greater number at election time, and thus indirectly assist in the same process as is sought to be effectuated by providing for compulsory voting.

In fact our Supreme Court in 1993 affirmed “voting is formal expression of will or opinion by the person entitled to exercise the right on the subject or issue in question” and that “Right to vote means right to exercise the right in favour of or against motion or resolution.

Such a right implies the right to remain neutral as well”.

Thus it is incumbent on the central government to provide effective mechanism for negative voting. As a matter of fact such a provision exists under the Rules framed by Central Govt. since long – though hardly anyone including the presiding officers act on it.

Thus under Rule 49(o) of conduct of Election Rules 1961 a voter has to inform the presiding officer of his intention not to vote – the presiding officer makes an entry in the remark column in Form 17 and the voter has to sign the form which is also to be countersigned by the Presiding Officer. This right was hardly exercised because it was then ballot voting – and in this process the secrecy of voting could not be maintained – polling agents and other officers would know about it. Majority of voters do not wish openly to get into conflict with political parties and especially their goons and therefore per force they voted for what they thought was the least undesirable.

But when we switched on to the present system of electronic voting machine, (EVM) it became easier to provide a mechanism in a manner that the secrecy of voting was not violated by just providing one more slot in the voting machine as ‘None of the above’. Election Commission commendably has been writing to the Central Government (which alone can amend Rule and provide for this method) since 2001. But regrettably there has not only been deafening silence from different political parties governments but now even the provocative, undemocratic stand of central government is that even if the present rule violates secrecy, it does not matter because secrecy though desirable is not inviolate and hence there is no reason to amend the rules.

This stand of the Central Government flies in face of International Civil and Political Covenant Rights and which is ratified by India that secrecy of Voting at the election is part of Human Rights guaranteed to each

THE RADICAL HUMANIST citizen in a country which calls itself democratic.

Thus, though the right to negative voting is provided in election law, it can not be effectuated unless the rules are amended by Central Government. Not doing so, in fact, goes against the mandate of the Parliament’s Act - a serious breach of constitutional obligation on the part of the Executive – hardly a commendable action.

It is not as if it is a radical untested suggestion. Negative voting is already prevalent in Ukraine and Russia who have only recently adopted democratic elections. It has been in existence for a long time in many of the states of U.S.A. since nineties.

In some states of U.S.A it is provided that ‘if none of above’ receives the most votes, then no one is elected and a by-election with new candidates is to be held within 60 days. Imagine what pressure it will put on the parties to avoid nominating candidates with criminal background which in our current elections reaches the minimum of 25% and across all the political parties.

Such a pressure thereof on the political parties may compel them to democratize their method of selecting candidates as against the present one of cabal selecting their own progeny, nephew, nieces, and underlings in the

FEBRUARY 2010 present – even if the disgusted voter is annoyed he or she can not prevent one of them to be elected. But if negative voting was there it would give a choice to the voters to loudly say ‘None of the above’ resulting in a fresh ballot.

This would be a step in the right direction of further democratizing the elections and give the “small man with a pencil (a phrase used by Winston Churchill and emphasized by Krishna Iyer J. in the time of ballot-voting) – but now the little man with a small finger will have the power to press the None of the Above” (NOTA) button on the election machine and make democracy more participatory.

I hope this competitive politics generated at Local level election in Gujarat will provoke the Central Government (which alone is the competent authority to amend the rules) to provide for NOTA (None of above), as requested by Election Commission. But the opposition can not sit still and blame the central government. If BJP wants to take credit for negative voting provision in Gujarat, it should publicly announce its support for amendment of rules to provide Negative Voting at States and Central level which will inevitably put pressure on the Central Government to do so.

BOOK RELEASE: Atheism and Secularity Edited by Phil Zuckerman, Description: Who are atheists? How does atheism relate to various aspects of our social world, such as politics, feminism, globalization, and the family? And what is the current state of atheism internationally?

Atheism and Secularity addresses the growing interest in the non-religious world by exploring these and related questions. It is a comprehensive and compelling look at atheists and atheism both nationally and internationally, covering a range of topics often overlooked in other books on the subject.

Atheism and Secularity is not a philosophical, polemic work, but rather an exploration of who atheists are, what they believe, how they relate to the world, and how the world relates to them. The first volume focuses on topics such as family life, gender, sexuality, politics, and social movements. The second volume looks at atheism and secularity around the world, exploring the lives of non-religious people in North America, Japan, China, India, Europe, the Arab World, and other locations. On India, Dr N.Innaiah has contributed a detailed article covering the Radical Humanist, Renaissance, Rationalist, Skeptic, Atheist, Dravidian, Federation of Atheist Rationalist & Buddhivadi movements present here. Title Features: Includes essays by 19 top sociologists and psychologists who study atheism and secularity and offers extensive bibliographies for each chapter. About the Author: Phil Zuckerman is News URL: associate professor of sociology at Pitzer College, Claremont, CA. http://www.greenwood.com/catalog/C35181.aspx News source: Greenwood Publishing Group.

12

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

FEBRUARY 2010

Balraj Puri [Mr. Balraj Puri is an authority on Jammu and Kashmir Affairs. He is Director, Institute of Jammu and Kashmir Affairs, Karan Nagar, Jammu-180005 Ph.no. 01912542687,09419102055 www.humanrightsjournal.com]

Regional Polarisation by Justice Sagheer’s Report Group on Centre-State relations Working headed by Justice Sagheer Ahmad that Prime Minister appointed in 2006 is the last of all other four working groups on other subjects on J&K State, which submitted its report on December 23, this year.

Briefly, its recommendations include restoration of autonomy to the state in the light of Indira-Abdullah accord in 1975. “It could not consider self-rule proposal of the PDP in detail as the document containing various aspects of it were not provided to the Working Group as premised.” It ruled out demand of Union Territory status for Ladakh’s “it would be detrimental to the unity and integrity of the State.” On the issue of discrimination with Jammu, it observed that “the recommendations of the Gajendragadkar Commission and Sikri Commission on the subject have largely been implemented,” and that “the planned expenditure in regions and districts does not indicate any discrimination.”

Predictably the reaction to the Commission’s report has been on divergent lines. Senior BJP leader and its representative on the Group, Arun Jaittely called the report “a fraud.” He reiterated the party’s opposition to autonomy for the state and demanded abrogation of Article 370. Other Jammu based parties like Panthers Party and Jammu State Morcha equally ridiculed the

13

report. Kashmiri Pandit migrants in Jammu and refugees from Pak and West Pakistan, too, have expressed their disappointment. Ladakh’s Union Territory Front leaders have decided “to oppose the report tooth and nail.”

Separatist parties of Kashmir region did not attach any importance to the report as it did not propose any thing that could contribute to the solution of the Kashmir problem. The PDP’s President Mehbooba Mufti called the report a good beginning but “with no specifics and substance”. Its chief spokesman Nain Akhtar added, there was no concrete suggestions in the report for the solution of the Kashmir problem, mere restoration of some autonomy to the state was no solution of Kashmir problem.” The ruling coalition partner National Conference welcomed the report though it fell short of its demand for restoration of 1953 status of the state.

On the whole, reaction in the valley is either lukewarm or indifferent while in Jammu and Ladakh regions it is hostile.

Obviously there was no member in the Working Group who could take an objective view of the aspirations of the three regions and reconcile them. Nor Justice Sagheer consulted any person well versed with the ground realities of the state.

Executive powers of the Centre Vs autonomous federal institutions: Take the question of Centre-State relations, the entire debate over it has been viewed as Kashmiri nationalism versus Indian Nationalism. But what is in the interest of people of Kashmir? If, for instance, Supreme Court’s jurisdiction had extended to the state in 1953, Sheikh Abdullah could not be dismissed and detained under any law then enforce. Similarly financial integration of the state sustains its economy. As long as the state had its own Election Commission, the elections were known to be rigged. The fairness of elections now under Union Election Commission has been universally acclaimed.

In the post Nehru era, drastic erosion of the autonomy of the state did take place. But while demanding restoration of autonomy, a distinction has to be drawn between executive powers of the centre and federal autonomous institutions like Judiciary, Election Commission and Auditor and Comptroller General which check undue encroachment of the Central executive in the affairs of the state.

Whatever be merits and demerits of Article 370, it has

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

FEBRUARY 2010

nothing to do with problems of Jammu and Ladkah.

Moreover if the BJP led government when in power could not abrogate it and its law minister told Parliament that it had no power to abrogate it, how does the party expect any other government to do it?

When Justice Sagheer Ahmad quotes official figures to prove that there has been no discrimination in development expenditure with any region or district, he must have known that nothing ensures faster and fair development than empowerment of the people at every level, who through their elected representatives should determine their needs and decide their priorities.

Allocation of funds should be based on an objective and equitable formula, keeping in view needs and level of development of a region or a district rather than arbitrarily determined by ruling party on subjective and political considerations. Moreover, regional identity is no less important. If it is weakened, religion based identities would emerge which would undermine the secular basis of the state and its unity. In particular the unique 5000 year old Kashmiri civilization would suffer.

Restore Ladakh’s Regional Identity: Justice Ahmad is all appreciation for development of Ladakh. But he ignores the fact that ever since Ladakh’s regional identity was broken into Leh and Kargil districts—with 52% Buddhist and 48% Muslim population— communal tensions have emerged for the first time there. First priority for Ladakh should be its recognition as a region within the constitution of the state like Jammu and Kashmir which should restore its secular identity ad give it some administrative autonomy like other two regions. The present powers of the Autonomous Council separately for Leh and Kargil are no more than enjoyed by Zila Parishads in many other parts of the country.

A federal decentralized set up alone can ensure emotional and political unity of the state. Regional autonomy is the logical extension of the autonomy of the state as Pandit Nehru and Sheikh Abdullah had

announced at a joint press conference on July 24, 1952 and was the basis on which the Praja Parishad, Jammu affiliate of the Jana Sangh, withdrew its agitation for abrogation of Article 370 in 1953. The State People’s Convention convened by Sheikh Abdullah and attended by the entire political spectrum of the Valley adopted a five tier internal constitution in 1968 which provided for regional autonomy and devolution of political power to the districts, blocks and panchayats. In this context Justice Ahmad’s recommendation for adoption of 73rd and 74th amendment of Indian Constitution on Panchayati Raj is quite relevant.

As far refugees from Pak administered Kashmir and West Pakistan are concerned, in brief they should be treated as refugees in Punjab and West Bengal were treated after 1947. The problem of Kashmiri Pandits migrants in Jammu cannot be resolved by monetary sops or security zones in Kashmir. Conditions should be created to make them feel as integral part of Kashmiri identity. The Kashmiri Muslims should also realize that their identity is incomplete without them.

The recommendation on separate Kashmiri and Dogri Channels of the Doordarshan instead of single Kasheer channel should be accepted with a minor amendment that is Jammu channel should also provide for that Gojri and Pahari, the two equally important ethnic communities of the Jammu region, other than Dogras.

There is certainly need for a thorough and frank debate on all the issues raised by the fifth Working Groups by all sections which should generate some light also instead of mere heat that it has as done so far. The separatists should also not dismiss of the report particularly which deals with the internal problems of the state. For why should people wait for the resolution of the problems of governance till they get Azadi. After all Sheikh Abdullah presented a blue print called Naya Kashmir in 1944 while fighting for Azadi from Dogra rule and convened People’s Convention which adopted internal constitution of the state in 1968 when he was leading a movement for plebiscite.

Dear Friends, Please email your article at rheditor@gmail.com and attach a passport size photograph to it. Or post it at C-8 Defence Colony, Meerut, 250001, U.P., India with a small introduction about yourself, if you are sending your write-up for the first time to us. Feel free to contact me at 91-9719333011 for any other querry.

—Rekha Saraswat

14

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

FEBRUARY 2010

N.K. Acharya [Sri . . Acharya is an Advocate, Columnist and Author of several books on law. He was formarly Secretary of Indian Rationalist Association and had edited the ndian Rationalist, then published from Hyderabad on behalf of the Association prior to its transfer to Madras.]

62 World Newspapers Congress And 16 World Editors’ Forum World Newspapers Congress and 16th 62nd.

World Editors’ Forum which were held in early December 2009 at Hyderabad discussed various issues confronting the newspapers all over the world.

The Speakers at the said Congress and Forum depicted the domination of business interest over the editorial content of the news papers and called for its elimination.

They referred to the online and internet publication of news and newspapers and claimed that they are effecting the Copyright of the newspaper. That apart, they are a threat to the quantum of the circulation of the print media. The editors alleged that Google is infringing when it displays the newspaper on its internet. The Congress and the Forum also also noted the absence of women in the top editorial and management posts.

Though qualified and competent in all respects women are rarely appointed as Chief executives or Editors-in-Chief. The Congress and the Forum thus demanded on one side the elimination of the business overlordship over the newspapers and on the other

demanded opening up the top posts in newspapers to women.

As far as the infringement for the Copyright by the online Journalists, they called for the setting up of an independent institution to levy and collect royalties from the infringers and pass them on to Copyright holders, just as it is being done in the case of performers of music and theatre. In the case of films, the reproduction of even shots amounts to infringement of Copyright. So also, the news gathered by news agencies and printed in the newspapers shall have Copyright in their creations.

Therefore, they shall be protected against infringement by online publishers that their copying news amounts to innocent use shall not be sustained.

There is however, one more important subject which ought to have been discussed by the Congress and the Forum. This subject refers to the monopoly of top newspapers over the mofussil publications. International giants are gulping the independent smaller newspapers at the state level and the giants at the state level are gulping the newspapers of the mofussil. This phenomena has become wide spread when unprecedented improvements in production and distribution machinery have overtaken the print media.

The threat here covers both the advertisements as well as circulation. The importance of mofussil publications to the local community being very great and significant, the big papers should see that the mofussil newspapers also survive and prosper.

If the right to disseminate news is a part of the fundamental right of free expression, right to know by the public is equally an essential part of human freedom.

Endlines: Norman Burlaud, described as global hunger fighter by the Nobel Committee gave the following five principles which should guide the scientist: 1. Give your best, 2. Believe you can succeed, 3. Face adversity squarely, 4. Be confident you will find answers when problems arise, 5. Then go about and win some bouts.

“Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”—Thomas Jefferson

15

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

FEBRUARY 2010

Political History of Andhra Pradesh

IRI / IRHA Members’ Section:

achievement of the Justice Party was Another to provide the non-Brahmins with

Innaiah Narisetti [M.N. Roy opined that politics should be studied systematically and history must be written in a scientific manner. Following both these principles suggested by M.N. Roy Dr Narisetti Innaiah, chairman of Center for Inquiry India, has come out with a scientific study of the political history of Andhra Pradesh in the form of a book “Political History Of Andhra Pradesh”. This book with 300 pages covers 100 years of contemporary events commencing from pre-independence days and concludes with 2009 emergence of Mr. K. Rosaiah as Chief Minister. This book narrates how Andhra Pradesh gained importance with the visit of two presidents from USA, namely Bill Clinton and George Bush. Mr. Bill Gates too visited. This happened due to prominence given to high technology. Political parties and their power games, constant defections, hereditary power sharing, and innumerable regional developments, all these aspects are traced in this book. Naxalite movement since 1969 and two turbulent agitations for separate state for Telengana have also been given a panoramic view. How Congress and Telugu Desam parties ruled the state while all other parties remained in opposition and then N.T. Rama Rao dislodged Congress party within 9 months during early 1980s and established name for the state in Delhi circles is also discussed in it. CFI India brought out this volume as model study. It is distributed by Akshara. Chapters are divided according to the rule of chief ministers. No sides are taken and the whole presentation is critical and objective. It will be good addition to the institutions, students, libraries. This book is being serialized in the RH, November 2009 onwards.]

opportunities for Government jobs. Every notable caste was represented in jobs. According to their plan the jobs were to be occupied in the following way: 22% Brahmins, 48% non-Brahmins, 10% Indian Christians, 15% Muslims, 2% Foreign Christians, 3% others.

The British Government modified the Municipal Acts before the reforms of Montague Chelmsford could come into force. There were a few reservations in Municipality. All the members had to come to the elections and the number of voters increased. The collectors had less power over the municipality. The Municipalities had more rights as well as duties. They were empowered to levy fresh taxes on tourism, amusement, street lights, sanitation and education. It was the usual gimmick to reduce taxes before elections.

But the people in power with their renewed authority changed the registers levying more taxes upon their opponents and favouring friends with fewer taxes. There were many such instances in Vijayawada and Guntur.

The business people in Vijayawada tried their best to demote Appalaswami who was for the Justice Party.

That made his opponents cling more to Congress. There was a big fight between Appalaswami’s group and his opponents in the non-cooperation movement of the Congress in 1920, which made the Government, summon the army for its rescue.

The Government decided to convert Cheerala-Perala into a municipality. The business people saw more disadvantages like more taxes and more domination by the Government in this, so they were against the new municipality. But the Government prevailed over their decision and made Cheerala-Perala a Municipality.

Duggirala Gopalakrishnaiah got the town vacated in April 1921, convincing people about non-cooperation.

Very few people were left in the town. The people had to face a number of difficulties in this bold act of theirs.

The Government penalized the people for not paying the taxes. The people returned to their homes with their conviction gradually weakening.

16

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

FEBRUARY 2010

Even in the Municipalities of Narasaraopet, Repalle, Guntur, Tenali and Vijayawada, the non-cooperation movement was successful to a certain extent only.

The All India Congress Session was held in Vijayawada, on 31st March and 1st April. The Andhra Congress office, with Konda as the Chairman, and Duggirala as Secretary was temporarily shifted to Vijayawada.

Gandhiji was present at the session and it was resolved to propagate the ‘Charkha Movement’ to increase membership in the Congress. Gandhiji toured in some major cities. In Palnadu and Vijayawada talukas, people violated the forest rules as a part of their non-cooperation movement. They opposed the instructions that cattle should not graze in the forests, that woodcutters should not cut wood. The Congress appointed a Committee with Unnava Lakshminarayana and Madabhushi Vedanta Lakshmi Narasimhachari as members to look into the problems of Palnadu. There were strikes everywhere and several people were arrested by the Government. As per the call given by Congress, the movement for prohibition of foreign goods and liquor caught up in many places. The no tax-payment movement continued. It took a severe turn in Pedanandipadu, under the leadership of Parvathaneni Veeraiah Chowdary. But the Government suppressed it very soon with the help of the police. The Congress turned its attention from civil disobedience to constructive programmes attracting the attention of the people. On the contrary, the Justice Party went on opposing their movements which only helped to weaken their party.

When the Justice party was in power, Alluri Seetharama Raju rebelled in Godavari Agency area in 1922. The Government adopted all methods to suppress this revolution by the Girijans, and the Congress did not come out openly in favour of this revolution in spite of the people’s sympathy for Rama Raju.

The Congress party was, in a way, lagging behind the Justice Party in internal disputes and jockeying for positions. By 1925, Duggirala Gopalakrishnaiah, Ayyadevara Kaleswara Rao and Konda Venkatappayya were at logger-heads. Pattabhi was not even allowed to be a member of the State Congress. With the connivance of Bulusu Sambamurty and B.H. Satyanarayana, Konda was forced to give up the Chairmanship of the State Congress.

17

Chitta Ranjan Das and Motilal Nehru differed from congress in their conviction to compete in elections and founded the Swarajya Party. C.R. Das opened many branches of the party during his tour of Andhra. The party functioned in Andhra, with Ayyadevara Kaleswara Rao as Chairman, and Nadimpalli Narasimha Rao, Duggirala Gopalakrishnaiah as the Secretaries. The party gained strength in 1926 and won eleven seats in the elections. Justice party secured only 22 seats and 36 went to independents.

Swarajya Party was against the formation of cabinet.

Even Panagal Raja was indifferent. So, P. Subbarayan became the Chief Minister. C.R. Reddy gave a call saying that by joining Congress, people could fight against Brahmin dominance. He was desperate as he could not find a position in the Government and hence defected from the Justice Party. K.V. Reddy Naidu founded the South Indian Liberal Federation. Panagal Raja, who resigned from the Justice Party, died on 16th December, 1928. Again there arose differences about the leadership of the party. B. Munuswamy Naidu and Bobbili Raja fought bitterly. Munuswamy Naidu who came closer to N.G.Ranga was against the Zamindars.

On the contrary, Bobbili Raja was supporting the British rulers. The leadership issue was raised in Nellore in 1929. It turned out to be a fight between the Velamas and the Kammas. Munuswamy Naidu became the Chief Minister of Madras in 1930. The economy was fast deteriorating as the international economic crisis had its effect even on Madras State. The villagers were getting into too many debts and prices of goods shot up rapidly.

Many sold their lands and started small scale business.

Many ginning machines started functioning. The Anti-Zamindar movement intensified under the leadership of Ranga. Bobbili and Mirjapuram Rajas manoeuvred to bring down Munuswamy Naidu as he was supporting Ranga. Munuswamy Naidu helped the tenants by reforming the Estate Land Act. The Zamindars decided to levy further land taxes after the Revenue Resettlement Survey. The farmers opposed it and the Congress party took up the movement. The village officers, who joined the agitation, were removed from service under one pretext or the other. K.A.R. Swamy and Dr. P. Gurumurthy led the movement against Pithapuram Raja. In addition to this, the Salt Satyagraha started by the Congress on 21st March, 1930 spread to Andhra also. Congress people met secretly.

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

FEBRUARY 2010

Local business communities helped them. There was displeasure mounting up about the local bodies.

Munuswamy Naidu, who had put off the Justice Party meetings over three years, arranged the conference in Tanjavur in 1932. Bobbili Raja played an important role in that meeting. Andhras, who went there as Munuswamy’s followers, did not even get admission.

Later, the Governor of Madras advised Munuswamy to resign as the Chief Minister, which he did. Bobbili Raja became the Chief Minister. He put a stop to democratic procedures. He decided to take Brahmins into the Justice Party and also opposed the Zamindar Tenant’s Bill, passed by Munuswamy. Taluka Boards were abolished by the Raja in 1934. Direct elections to the Zilla Boards were introduced. The Zilla Board Chairman could be removed by a ‘no confidence’ motion. Local bodies were within the reach of the people but this led to more problems. With an increase of violence, Vijayawada Municipality was abolished in 1933. East Godavari Zilla Board Chairman, Mullapudi Pallama Raju, acted as a director in making appointments, giving contracts, transferring teachers. Political murders increased in Ananthapuram, Cuddapah and Guntur districts. People began to move away from the Justice Party. Pithapuram Raja wasted no efforts in removing Bobbili Raja. C.R. Reddy came close to the Congress. Bobbili Raja started party journals for his own propaganda. Neti Chalapathi was appointed to probe into the complaints made against Brahmananda Reddy who was the Chairman of the Ongole Zilla Board. Till today, no one knows what happened to the report of Neti Chalapathi. 1936 was the year of elections. Pithapuram Raja started a new party called the People’s Party which opposed the Justice Party. All those, who could not stay in the Justice Party for various reasons naturally found asylum in the Peoples’ Party. The Justice Party contested for 90 seats and the People’s Party put up 40 candidates. Justice Party could secure only 21 seats with much effort as the Congress had established its strength and influence.

Only Pithapuram Raja won the election. Bobbili Raja and Venkatagiri Raja were defeated. Bobbili constituency had been the scene of many feuds and fights. The elections delivered a death-blow to the Justice Party while some retired from the party, far-sighted people joined the Congress.

The Congress party very rapidly gained momentum as the popularity of the Justice party waned. Congress

principles took their roots among the upper as well as the middle classes. The non-cooperation movement gained recognition within the Congress party in Andhra. People like Ranga and C.R. Reddy entered Congress but even the Congress party sailed in the same boat as the Justice Party, as far as the disagreement among leaders was concerned. Konda Venkatappayya, Prakasam and Pattabhi were at loggerheads.

Prakasam and Rajaji were opposed to each other.

Kumara Swamy Raja, and Kasinathuni Nageswara Rao were on one side while Ranga and V.V. Giri on the other, during the elections. Duggirala Gopalakrishnaiah accused Bulusu Sambamurthi of having spent all the party money as its State President in 1923. Konda Venkatappayya, Dandu Narayana Raju and Bikkina Venkata Ratnam continued as one group. These group politics affected the districts too, leading to local disputes. The Government declared elections to the Central Assembly in 1937. All the groups were active in selecting their candidates. They not only abused each other in the meetings regarding selection of candidates but also exchanged bitter criticism through newspapers.

Nadimpalli Narasimha Rao stood as an independent candidate against Ranga who contested from the Guntur and Nellore constituencies. Bezawada Gopala Reddy withdrew from the contest. Munuswamy Naidu tried to join the Congress along with his followers from Justice Party. As Congress gained stability, it started attracting the youth. Kasinadhuni Nageswara Rao addressed meetings at several temples and could influence the Vysyas to a large extent. All the Congress candidates won in the elections. Mirjapuram Raja was forced out of power. Congress promised party tickets to those who paid Rs.100/- to the party, but they decided to give seats to those who paid a thousand. Those who paid the hundred and could not get tickets, joined the Justice Party. Congress received several applications seeking membership in the party. Bulusu Samba Murthy sent a complaint to Rajendra Prasad against the state party for ignoring true Congressmen and issuing party tickets to affluent Marwari merchants, Ramanath Goenka and K. Venkataswamy Naidu of the Justice Party. Similarly, A.V. Punnaiah, who sought the favour of the Government by giving costly presents to them at Christmas and Upputuri Ramaiah were given party tickets despite being opposed by C.H. Suryanarayana.

Veteran congressmen from Cuddapah resigned from the

18

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

FEBRUARY 2010

Congress protesting against its attitude. Sharabha Reddy, a councillor from Kurnool who won the election on the Justice Party ticket joined the Congress and became the Vice-Chairman of the Zilla Board. A. Raghunatha Reddy and T.N. Krishna Reddy left the Justice Party and joined Congress to fill the vacancy in the Zilla Board chairmanship of Chittoor in the place of C.R. Reddy. Though Congress did not have a majority in the Ongole Zilla Board, they managed to win through promises. The practice of holding the Zilla Board members and taking the help of pehelwans (body-builders) to conduct the elections started with the election of the President of West Godavari Zilla Board.

Bobbili Raja remained powerful at a time when Congress triumphed in the elections. He managed whatever he could in the local bodies. He abolished the municipalities of Guntur, Vijayawada and Rajahmundry along with many local bodies and taluk boards. He brought his own men into power by changing the Zilla Boards. He divided Nellore, Krishna and East Godavari districts inspite of the Governor’s advice not to do so.

Krishna Zilla Board was changed for the sake of Mirjapuram Raja. Inspite of all this, the Justice party met with a disgraceful defeat and Congress won 159 out of the 215 seats. Before this, Congress only had 98 seats.

The system of nominations was made keeping up reservations for only Harijans and Muslims. 68 seats were set aside for Christians, Muslims, landlords, business people, women graduates and the factory workers-13% of the people who were tax payers were only entitled to vote.

In 1931, a leftist organization called the Vujjeevan Bharath Sammelan came up in Godavari district. This association was founded with Bhagath Singh as an inspiration. Pratiwadi Bhayankarachari and Kameswara Shastri played the key roles but politically there was nothing remarkable done by these people. The Government managed to nip them in the bud.

Another organization called the Hindustan Socialist Republican Army also had its branch in Andhra. This too did not achieve anything. K. Ramanath Choudary, M. Sabhapathy were in this organization. Gadicherla Hari Sarvothama Rao formed a new party called the Andhra Congress Swarajya Party as a result of his disappointment in Congress giving up the civil-disobedience movement. This party met in

19

Vijayawada on 12th February 1934, but it could not survive for long. A manifesto was also released by this party which had people like Gummadidala Venkata Subba Rao, V. Ramadasu Panthulu, Kolli Satyanarayana Choudary.

In response to a call given by the All India Congress Socialist Party a branch was opened in Andhra on 23rd June 1934. Puchalapalli Sundaraiah, Chandra Rajeswara Rao and Alluri Satyanarayana Raju joined this party.

Ranga was its Chairman, and Annapurnaiah was the Secretary. Krovvidi Linga Raju, Rangasayi, and K. Satyanarayana Joined it. A large number of youth were attracted towards it. Those were the days when Marxist and Socialist ideas influenced people through Marxist literature. The Congress Socialist party in Andhra was in the hands of communists. They functioned not as a separate party but in an affiliation to Congress Party. The Leftists and Rightists could not continue for long in the same party. One group worked under the leadership of Lingaraju. Ranga was training people through his political schools. Many Communists participated in these schools. Jonnalagadda Ramalingaiah and Sundaraiah worked hard to gather the peasants in the circar districts. The Congress Socialist Party was gradually dominated by the Communists. When they disassociated with Congress, the Andhra wing fell to the Communists.

The Congress held its elections in 1936 when it had 50,865 members. Complaints against each other jockeying for positions and internal fights continued.

The State association used to send mediators to look into its affairs. Guntur and West Godavari were notorious for such disputes. Guntur district was eliminated from the Provincial Congress elections. There were two groups in the Guntur district. Though there were a few supporters of the Prakasam-Samba Murthy group, majority supported Kaleswara Rao and Ranga’s group. But Ranga sensed that politically there was no place for him in Guntur district. Pattabhi also faced a similar situation in the Krishna district. Both tried their best to gain political influence in Rayalaseema but failed. Ranga turned his attention to Vizag and Srikakulam districts.

Prakasam and Samba Murthy prepared a joint list of candidates for the State Assembly elections of February 1937. Rajendra Prasad, Jawaharlal Nehru and Vallabhai Patel came to Andhra for canvassing. Socialist slogans

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

FEBRUARY 2010

worked well on the minds of the people. The people were asked to choose between the peasants and the Rajas.

Justice Party was no match to the Congress in canvassing. Congress bagged all but three seats that went to the Justice Party. Among the Harijan seats, 26 went to Congress and the Justice Party got only 2. Four of the Muslims seats were taken by Congress, 8 went to the Justice party. Four women candidates won the elections from the Congress. Both the Congress and Justice Party took to ignoble practices even in the Zilla Board elections. Teachers who opposed them were transferred. In Guntur district alone, 172 teachers were transferred to other places. Similar practices took place in the Ongole district. To please the members, 200 teachers were transferred. Justice Party collected lakhs of rupees as tax to meet the expenses against Congress.

The Rajas of Challapalli, Mirjapuram and Pithapuram were temporarily united among themselves forgetting their past differences. Even then it could not beat the influence of the Congress party.

After a thumping victory, Congress formed its first ministry in Madras in 1937. Both Rajagopalachari and Prakasam aspired for Chief Ministership. The Telugu people met in Kasinadhuni’s house but Prakasam was opposed by some of the Andhras themselves. Gandhiji’s reluctance towards Prakasam was also a reason for that.

Having sensed the situation, Prakasam and Samba Murthy proposed Rajaji’s name and he was elected.

Prakasam became the Revenue minister in Rajaji’s ministry. V.V.Giri was also one of the ministers.

Bezawada Gopala Reddy was the minister for the local bodies. Bulusu was the speaker. Disagreement, however, continued between Rajaji and Prakasam.

Pattabhi held the post of the President of Andhra Pradesh Congress.

Though Andhras held meetings every year the people of Rayalaseema were still to be convinced about the need for a separate state. Kasinathuni Nageswara Rao and others tried to patch up the differences between the people of Rayalaseema and the people from other areas.

The All India Congress too, in principle, accepted the formation of separate Andhra. To bring about a better understanding by driving away doubts of Rayalaseema people against circars, the leaders met in Kashinathuni’s house on 14th November 1937. Pattabhi played a

20

prominent role. The representatives from Rayalaseema were Kadapa Koti Reddy, Kalluri Subba Rao, Pappuri Ramachari, H. Seetha Ram Reddy and Konda.

Mullapudi Pallam Raju and Kashinathuni represented the Circars. Certain promises were made to Rayalaseema to make them agree to the idea of a separate State. Rayalaseema people’s demands prevailed in deciding the capital city and High Court.

They also said that Ananthapuram should have a university. After this the resolution for a separate Andhra was proposed and passed both in the Assembly as well as in the Council. The problem of a separate State appeared to have been solved; though it was only on paper yet. Prakasam went on insisting that only Madras should be the Capital for Andhra. With this, a separate State was delayed by another sixteen years. Andhra continued to take inspiration from the all India politics.

Many students from Andhra brought back new ideas as they happened to study in Banaras and other universities.

The Communists elected Sundaraiah as their Secretary in a secret meeting at Kakinada in 1935. They conducted political schools for the youth at Kottapatnam and Manthenavaripalem. M.V. Sastry, Koganti Radha Krishna Murthy, Subrahmanyam and Avula Gopalakrishna Murthy who were highly influenced by M.N. Roy took up the task of bringing Roy’s ideas to the people.

In connection with Quit India Movement, certain congress leaders met in Machilipatnam and decided to employ certain violent tactics in the country. Both the groups - Pattabhi, Kala Venkata Rao on one side and Prakasam on the other joined hands to chalk out a common programme. The British came to know about it.

Gandhiji pressed the leaders to tell him as to who intended to be among the destructive forces. Every one denied the knowledge of it. Things like obstruction of rail-services, disconnecting telephone connections were some of the items listed in the circular prepared in that meetings. The British took this opportunity to take rigorous action against the congressmen. Amancharla Gopal Rao and his friends resorted to violent action based on the Andhra circular. The congressmen were put in prison as a result of the Salt Sathyagraha and the Anti-British activity of the people. They could not do away with bickering even in prisons, groupism being the speciality of the Congressmen.....................contd.

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

FEBRUARY 2010

Bipin Shroff

No to Social Darwinism may surprise our readers that why the word It“Social” is inserted before the concept “Darwinism”. Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution is well known to us. But this concept “Social Darwinism” was first introduced by 19th century philosopher Herbert Spencer. H. Spencer applied the theory of “Natural Selection” for explaining the social, economic, political problems of the society. Just as in Darwin’s theory of evolution the fittest survived, H. Spencer came to the conclusion that this law could also be applied to the social order. The world society proved his point when we saw that only those who were mighty had the right to survive and to rule.

In the 19th century, European countries had by and large total control of the non-western world or nations. The latter were known as colonies. The western nations with their superior technology, advanced forms of government and economy were able to govern the entire colonial world. Their superior physical dominance was considered as their superior culture and superior race.

According to Spencer theirs’ was a white race born to rule over the non-whites. They were rather destined to rule over others. Weaker race thus, have either no right to exist or they exist only in the interest of superior race.

Adolf Hitler and many religious sects believed in their race-superiority. Hitler justified the extermination of Jews on the basis that Nazis were a superior race as compared to the Jews. According to Social Darwinism, those with strength (economic, physical, technological) flourish and those without are destined for extinction.

Social Darwinism has now proven to be not only false but dangerous too; because at its worst, the implications of Social Darwinism were used as scientific justification

for the Holocaust.

Today the world and particularly our country is encircled in this vicious grip of Social Darwinism. Since last more than two decades the Indian government has developed an economic model on the basis of Social Darwinism. It has formulated economic and other policies to attain the goal of this philosophy. There is no exaggeration in concluding that the Indian state is highjacked by few oligarchic elements of the country.

The state machinery is employed to enhance their economic empire. There is a grand collusion between the oligarchic economic power (which is vested in few) and the state political power.

Actually the state apparatus is created for the people at large and that is by the people themselves. It is normally expected that the modern state will look after the basic welfare requirements of its people at large.

Now we will see how this elite state has marginalized its large number of people form the total process of development.

The Indian central government has divided the country into about “530 Special Economic Zones (SEZ) for its balanced and speedier development.” Each zone will be developed in1000 hectares of land. The state government like Gujarat has already planned to develop its economy on the basis of SEZ model. Gujarat Government has already earmarked more than 40 SEZ zones and has started to gear its entire state machinery in that direction. The central government has provided such liberal policies of labor laws, taxes, profit, exportimport and banking etc. as if no law of this nation is applicable to those who run industries in these zones.

SEZ Capitalist cum industrial magnets will create their own states within the national boundaries of our Indian State.

They may actually be named as the “East India Companies of 21st centuries” with different colors and shades.

Now before analyzing the consequences of Sez economy let us have a bird’s-eye-view of the planned economic development of last six decades.

According to data available, out of total population of the nation, 77% of its people have less than Rs. 20 per day to spend. Only less than 46% of national homes have electricity in their homes. 80% of national population has no access to pure drinking water. 92% of its current

21

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

FEBRUARY 2010

labor force is not covered by any social welfare & insurance scheme.

In the Indian rural economy, its 60% population is landless. More than 1, 82000 of rural farmers committed suicides in the last decade in the country as they failed to repay their loans. Most of these farmers were small and marginal farmers.

The worst affected population of these dire consequences is of the schedule caste and tribe. It consists of 25% of total national population. From all measuring criteria of the human development index this section is the worst affected. Its income is not only the lowest among all the different sections of the society but it is absolutely irregular, meager and uncertain through out the year. These people are mostly illiterate, lacking in all modern facilities of health; their children mortality rate is the highest. It is not possible to live a normal life for this section of society specially in certain states of India like Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, W. Bengal, Chhattisgarh, Orissa and Jharkhand .

Why is it so? This is the direct result of Social Darwinism. The governments of these states have acquired land, forest, river, local community pond or lake of the villages and open common pastures land of the villages. These social natural resources of the society have gradually been transferred to industrial nexus of the nation under one or other pretext in the name of the scheme of industrial developments.

Since1951 to 2004 the center and the states governments acquired a total of more than 2.5 crores hectares of land under different development schemes. Out of total land acquired more than 76 lac hectares had dense forests where tribals were living since ages; now they has been uprooted and dispossessed from their meager sources of livelihood. More than 60 lac hectares of this land was used by local villagers like common pastures, ponds, rivers for common social purposes. After six decades of planned development even today 66% of dispossessed are still totally deprived of employments, permanent livelihood, shelter etc.

Now, since the last two decades, both the centre as well as the state level governments have adopted the neo-liberal capitalist model of development. Under the guise of SEZ model of economic development all the regional states have started acquiring fertile agriculture lands in their states. These political powers share their

22

total interests with the emerging neo-capitalist powers.

And the administrative machineries of the state powers with the help of local police, and para- military forces work as the agents of neo-liberal capitalist agents.

The state is no longer ready to hear the genuine grievances of the dispossessed people. Any peaceful and democratic representation like mass-meetings, giving memorandums to the competent authorities, organizing civil-disobedience movements etc. are treated as taking the law in one’s own hands and are dealt with maximum possible force. Many false and fabricated cases are filed against the key persons of voluntary organizations and they are put in jails as under-trials for years. (e.g. Dr. Binayak Sen National Vice-president of People’S Union for Civil Liberties - PUCL). Virtually the states have stopped and closed all the possible means of democratic representations.

What is the way out?

In reality, the Indian modern state has preferred the wrong model of growth. This is really an inhuman model of people’s development because its fruits are enjoyed by and concentrated in the privileged few of the society.

It defends the concept of “Social Darwinism”. The state works for those who by any means have accumulated the means of production. With the collusion of this privileged class the state creates laws and apparatus to increase the latter’s empire. This is not a healthy sign of human development. In comparison with other nations of the world there is the highest increase in percentage of millionaires in India. Just in one year, in 2007, the increase was more than 23%. This amounts to almost a “Developmental Disaster”. No democratic nation can afford to run its state-power in such conditions.

For example, USA to-day, is in the grip of severe economic depression. By and large, all its parameters of growth are dwindled. It has the highest number of unemployed now if compared to the Great Depression of the ‘30s. The first thing Obama administration wants to implement now is to revive its small consumer sector of economy because more than 85% of its work force is employed in small and consumer goods industries. This is the reality of the biggest industrial nation of the world.

We have to learn our lesson from it.

What should be our growth model, then?

Radical Humanism from its pre-independence days advocated the implementation of “Peoples Plan”.

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

FEBRUARY 2010

Knowing fully well that ours is an overpopulated country, no useful purpose will serve by allocating our scarce resources to the investment of Capital intensive industries. Unfortunately, as a nation we have continued our march in the wrong direction. Let us make our sincere efforts to reverse the direction of the growth

model in the people interest.

Mr. Bipin Shroff is a veteran Radical Humanist from Gujarat and is Editor of the Gujarati journal of the Radical Humanist Movement.

RENAISSANCE PUBLISHERS PRIVATE LIMITED 15, Bankim Chatterjee Street (2nd floor), Kolkata: 700 073, Mobile: 9831261725 NEW FROM RENAISSANCE

By SIBNARAYAN RAY Between Renaissance and Revolution-Selected Essays: Vol. I In Freedom’s Quest: A Study of the Life and Works of M. N. Roy: Vol. Ill Part-1 Against the Current

By M. N. ROY Science and Superstition AWAITED OUTSTANDING PUBLICATIONS

By RABINDRANATH TAGORE & M. N. ROY Nationalism

By M. N. ROY The Intellectual Roots of Modern Civilization The Russian Revolution The Tragedy of Communism From the Communist Manifesto To Radical Humanism Humanism, Revivalism and the Indian Heritage

By SIVANATH SASTRI A History of The Renaissance in Bengal—Ramtanu Lahiri: Brahman & Reformer

By SIBNARAYAN RAY Gandhi, Gandhism and Our Times (Edited) The Mask and The Face (Jointly Edited with Marian Maddern) Sane Voices for a Disoriented Generation (Edited) From the Broken Nest to Visvabharati The Spirit of the Renaissance Ripeness is All

By ELLEN ROY From the Absurdity to Creative Rationalism

By V. M. TARKUNDE Voice of A Great Sentinel

By SWARAJ SENGUPTA Reflections Science, Society and Secular Humanism

By DEBALINA BANDOPADHYAY The Woman-Question and Victorian Novel

23

H.C.350.00 H.C.250.00 H.C.350.00 H.C.125.00

H.C.150.00 H.C.150.00 P.B.140.00 H.C.180.00 P.B.100.00 H.C.140.00 P.B. 140.00 H.C.180.00 H.C.200.00 H.C.200.00 P.B. 140.00 P.B.120.00 P.B.150.00 P.B. 125.00 P.B. 90.00 H.C.175.00 H.C 150.00 H.C. 125.00 H.C. 150.00

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

FEBRUARY 2009

Teacher’s & Research Scholar’s Section:

The Appeal of Rationalism to a Thinking Mind —By Nihar Ranjan Acharya Rationalism’ is not speculation – it is utterly practical. It is not a philosophy – it is very down-to-earth. It wants to transform people, not just to stuff their minds with futile, impotent ideas. All ideas of religions as such are impotent. They pretend much, but when you go deep into them, you will always find them empty of all reality. They promise, but they never deliver. They create beautiful mansions in the air. They are artists in creating dreams. And those who become enchanted with those dreams are very unrealistic, because their lives will be wasted. And by the time they become aware that they have been chasing dreams, it will be too late. They never come face to face with reality. And it is only reality that liberates.

Rationalism is not an “ism” as such. It is a practical methodology. If you understand its ways, it is going to transmute you from lower animal to higher asking animal. It is not interested in giving you great ideas. Its basic emphasis is how to give you a little more awareness. As you know, an ounce of awareness is far more valuable that the whole Himalayas of philosophy.

An inch of becoming more conscious is far better than traveling thousands of miles in your dreams.

Rationalism is more scientific than philosophic – scientific in the sense that the criterion of truth has to be a practical result.

A rationalist carries all symptoms of a good citizen. He is one who contributes his best for the well-being of the family, society and the country of which he is an integral part. He has responsibilities towards his family and the nation. He is not concerned about his well-being only, but also about the larger good of the society and the country. Through love, truthfulness, selfless service and hard work, a rationalist hammered out a rich, beautiful and glowing personality, the like of which can be found only in centuries. A rationalist never promotes blind faith in so-called miracles and other supernatural phenomena and thereby strictly denies the dependency on god-men, magicians, tantriks, and other power brokers; curtails freedom of thought and action; subdues

‘

24

intelligence and quest for inquiry; inhibits mental development especially in children and emerging youths. A rationalist knows that blind faith could destroy people’s health, as happened in Mumbai when gullible people began drinking the dirty sea water; it could destroy people’s wealth, as when precious milk went down the drain in the belief that idols were drinking it; it could even destroy lives, when the gullible sacrifice children’s lives on the advice of so-called god-men and tantriks. If one must believe in miracles, it is best to believe in the miracle of life, in the miracle of the human body, and strive to find ways to bring down child mortality check female infanticide and keep humans away from deadly diseases. And it is best to believe in the miracle of the universe, and strive to explore the secrets that lie strewn in the great expanse of the universe.

Several biologists tell us today that we do not know much about the science of the human being in depth. We are only scratching the surface of this great science, whereas this is the science that Rationalism teaches us. It is a science, a science of man in depth, dealing with man’s all round growth and all the blessings that follow from that growth. Hence, it can be studied, controlled, communicated, checked and verified. That is how the rationalism developed this profound science of man in depth, so that a human being can grow beyond the limitations placed by the so-called religion and so-called religious people.

Knowledge is to know what you do not know. And you will never know unless you ask questions. This is rationalism which teaches us to ask questions so that in the process we will arrive at the truth. He who does not ask questions is a fool of a lifetime. I believe that rationalists are the most evolved ‘asking animals’ on this planet. And being the most evolved species, a rationalist should go for the meaning of any word used in any context, even for the implied meaning of word instead of catching the word alone.

Throughout history, from the time of Socrates to our modern age brainy individuals have sought answers to the fundamental questions of life. Rational human beings who are brave and bold are basically investigating, inquiring and science loving individuals.

Socrates of Athens and Bruno of Italy had to die as they tried and asked awkward questions. Socrates was trying

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

FEBRUARY 2010

to awaken his fellow Athenians who were under the grip of ignorance. Bruno was trying to open and widen the path of science and in the process the wrong doings of the then Papal Administration. Throughout the ages, rationalists are the brave individuals who reformed various things by asking questions. Rationalists counter superstition, aim to promote an open and just society, endorse scientific method and recognize the importance of human emotions and imaginations.

Being a rationalist, if I say that the so-called creator ‘god’ is nothing but our creation like a conjurer’s illusion; and like an amnesic conjurer who has forgotten his own sleight of hand, we take the illusion for reality.

When religion says god is omnipotent, there I would like to put a question – could god build a wall so high that he could not jump over it? If he were omnipotent, he could build such an un-jumpable wall. But by the same token of his omnipotence, he could jump over it. What the debaters did not see was that both the wall, and its Athletic Builder, was equally figments of their imagination, as was the debate! The moral problems of god’s existence centre around the question: if a benevolent and all-powerful god exists, why does he allow bad things to happen to good people? The answer often provided is that it’s all part of a divine plan which we can’t see and therefore can’t understand. This makes god sound like a Big Brother who works strictly on a need-to-know basis while manipulating our minds and actions. Here, Periyar’s slogan needs to be addressed: Forget God; Think of Humanity.

Science has triumphed over so many things and human being can be invisible, thereby diminishing god’s kingdom. A recent breakthrough has kindled hopes of fusing fact with fiction in times to come. Scientists at the University of Berkeley in California, USA announced that they were very close to developing materials that could render people invisible. The team led by Xiang Zhang has come out with a material that can control the direction of travel of visible light. It can bend itself around objects, thus hiding them from view. A cloak made from such material could render anything from people to large objects like ships and tanks invisible. The startling find has caught the fancy of the old and young alike. We see objects because they scatter the light that strikes them, reflecting some of it back to the eye. But

the wonder material, also know as ‘meta-material’, curves light waves completely around the object like a river flowing around a rock. An observer looking at the cloaked object would then see light from behind it – making it seem to disappear. The object would not even cast a shadow.

So, the technology is promising and breakthrough is breathtaking, but what about its applications? Apart from the very obvious military applications what, if any, real-life applications of an invisibility cloak one could think of. Perhaps an invisibility cloak on all the dirt and muck around us would make our lives so beautiful. The slum just facing our posh colony or the stinking potholes on the roads, the idols that are dominating, neglecting human lives could be easily taken care of. Poverty, pollution, corruption, illiteracy, the concept of god – all would be gone the moment we drape an invisibility cloak around them.

Today, we have a society where, in spite of all the gadgets of civilizations, there are so many human problems and, above all, the threat of nuclear war and civil violence. The hand that rocks a cradle and the hand that throws a bomb and kills a whole family – in both you can see the same hand; but it is rationalism which teaches us how to change this hand to that hand? I often quote Bertrand Russell in this connection. He was an agnostic, not a man of religion, but seeing the post-war situation, he says in his book entitled Impact of Science on Society: ‘Unless man increases in wisdom as much as knowledge, increase of knowledge will be increase of sorrow.’ A rationalist should adopt this teaching of Russell and practice being more loving. To practice being more loving, create a love account. Each day, make a few deposits in this very reserve by doing something small to add joy to the life of someone around you. The means to gain happiness is to throw out for oneself like a spider in all directions an adhesive web of love, and to catch in all that comes.

I would love to end with Periyar’s words: Rationalist that I am I have no attachment what so ever to god, religion, literature or language. I shall talk only of that which is acceptable to intelligence, that which does well to the people and that which enlightens them.

Mr. Nihar Ranjan Acharya is Editor of “Here, The Search Begins...” and Founder/Director, TRUST.

25

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

FEBRUARY 2010

Book Review Section:

Dipavali Sen [Ms. Dipavali Sen has been a student of Delhi School of Economics and Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics (Pune). She has taught at Visva Bharati University, Santiniketan, and various colleges of Delhi University. She is, at present, teaching at Sri Guru Gobind Singh College of Commerce, Delhi University.

She is a prolific writer and has written creative pieces and articles for children as well as adults, both in English and Bengali. Dipavali@gmail.com]

Beyond Bhopal [BOOK—Bhopal Survivors Speak: Emergent Voices From A People’s Movement Bhopal Survivors’ Movement Study 2009; by Eurig Scandrett, Suroopa Mukherjee, Dharmesh Shah, Tarunima Sen and many named and unnamed Bhopal survivors and activists; World Power Books, Edinburgh; design Leela Sooben; paperback; black and white photo illustrations; pp 218; price not stated.] book is not about the Bhopal Gas This‘Tragedy’; it is about Bhopal gas survival – its spirit and strategy.

You feel this even when you look at the cover. It has no dead eyes or twisted bodies - images hauntingly associated with Bhopal for the last 25 years even though most of us have tried to look the other way. This book has bright eyes and smiles on its front cover. They make you pick up the book with an interest that grows into great respect as you read on.

26

The book opens with the Editor Eurig Scandrett’s Preface and Acknowledgement. He was a student of Botany in 1984, but after the Bhopal gas tragedy he felt that it was impossible to continue as a neutral scientist.

Eventually, in 2004, he got drawn to the International Campaign for Justice in Bhopal, and went on to devise a research project that culminated in this publication.

Right next comes the Glossary. This is a most thoughtful placing, making this book reader-friendly and distinct from the usual academic stuff.

The long and annotated Introduction (pp 10-48) explains the objective and methodology of this study, along with the experiences and general conclusions it led to. In fact, it is really part of the main body or content of the book, rather than an Introduction to it.

The study is by a team. Suroopa Mukherjee is a noted academic and author with a long-standing commitment to the cause of Bhopal. Tarunima Sen is a young and energetic researcher trained in Sociology and Geography, and Dharmesh Shah an environmental activist in corporate accountability and community environment monitoring. Getting together, they applied innovative research methods with resourcefulness and zest. They spoke to the people. The people spoke to them. The team recorded what they said in audio-visual as well as written forms, and brought them out in print.

These recorded statements are what follow the Introduction, constituting an oral history of the movement by actual survivors and campaigners, rather than any sociologist, economist or historian, however learned. Let us take an example.

Survivor Rabiya Bee says, “After the gas leak, Nirmala Buch, who was the wife of a government bureaucrat, started an organization named Swavalamban to generate employment for poor women and widows of the gas disaster. The centre provided stitching, knitting, embroidery, and jute work to the women; this ran for one and a half years……” (p 62). But later when efficiency (output per day) increased, wages did not. “This is when the exploitation started and Nirmala Buch began giving us limited work so that we would make less money.”(p 63) She goes on to say that “The whole system at the centre was corrupt. People at the top made money everywhere, they got commissions at every level. There was a chaos where tenders for goods were opened; people would find

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

FEBRUARY 2010

ways to get commission on the smallest thing like buttons. So I devised a strategy for the women to make some extra money as well – I taught them techniques to save cloth scrap in a way that they could use it to make some extra money… (p 63) And so Rabiya Bee emerged as a fearless and articulate leader, and even formed and headed a women workers’ union (Bhopal Gas Peedit Mahila Udyog Sangathana).

This is the sort of material this study provides. We get it straight, not second hand. We see the surviving, not just the suffering.

“What has happened has happened and we can’t change that but we will keep on fighting”, it says at the end (p 216), not in a tragic whisper but in a strident voice.

Indra Sinha’s Animal’s People, reviewed earlier in RH, also made us hear the voices of the gas-affected. But, of course, that was a fictionalized version of what happened – although no less real and revealing. In some sense, the two books are complements.

In the syllabi of Economics and even Business Economics courses in universities, all we have are long-winded articles on how the multinational ‘form’ of business organizations arose in course of the emergence of Capitalism, their ‘advantages and disadvantages’ and the over-riding need for Foreign Direct Investment in India.

The student graduates, in the overwhelming majority of cases, with the dream of getting into an MNC – no matter what gas it may be leaking, in their own country or elsewhere.

If instead they were exposed to study material of the kind

this book provides, they could have a very different ‘take’ on the subject.

TERI University in Delhi is launching a Master’s course in Sustainable Development Practice, designed on the recommendations of the UN Commission on Education for Sustainable Practices, 2008. Union Carbide’s gas leak in Bhopal and similar MNC-made ‘disasters’ should be part of at least this sort of a course. Study material of the kind provided in this book would seem to be more relevant to it.

Individuals and NGOs too may use this as a model or format to carry out their own research in quite different areas. There are still voices that can speak of the Partition-trauma suffered in person. India has never lacked in disasters – deliberate or accidental, or in stories of survival. But they have not been chronicled fully, certainly not from the point of view of the disaster-struck.

People’s movements elsewhere too can learn from this book, and take heart.

Bhopal Survivors Speak inspires and encourages at a purely personal level too. What are one’s personal troubles compared to what Rabiya Bee, Hajra Bee or Nawab Khan went through, and survived? Yes, one had read and heard about Bhopal all these years. But hearing it from the people – in their own words and voices – makes a difference. Perhaps the book can be used on a systematic basis in ‘counseling’ the traumatized, and be part of a ‘book-therapy’ curriculum.

So, though this book is about Bhopal, it can take us much beyond it. Let the voices carry – and not get blown away in the wind.

Important Announcement The Indian Renaissance Institute (IRI) is organising the ‘M.N. Roy Memorial Lecture - 2010’ on 23rd March 2010 (Tuesday) in New Delhi. Mr. Kumar Ketkar, Editor, Jansatta, a leading Marathi daily newspaper, is going to deliver the Lecture on “Today’s Turbulent World and Relevance of M.N. Roy”.

The Venue and exact time will be announced on the RH Website in the first week of February 2010 and also in the March 2010 issue of the RH. You are requested to attend the Lecture in large numbers and participate in the discussion that would follow the Lecture.

All the friends coming from outside Delhi may kindly contact Mr. N.D. Pancholi, Secretary, IRI, for further assistance at 09811099532 or email him at azadpancholi@yahoo.com —Editor

27

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

FEBRUARY 2010

R.M. Pal [Dr. R.M. Pal is the Editor of PUCL Bulletin and former President of Delhi State PUCL. He was formerly the editor of The Radical Humanist. He has co-edited Human Rights of Dalits with Mr. G.S. Bhargava. He has also co-edited Power to the People: The Political Thought of Gandhi, M.N. Roy and Jaiprakash Narayan with Mrs. Meera Verma, published by Gyan Books, New Delhi in two volumes.]

[BOOK: Jinnah – India, Partition, Independence:

by Jaswant Singh, Rupa and Company, New Delhi 2009, pp 669, price Rs. 695.]

A Reasonably accurate account of Indian history: is a reasonably accurate account of Indian Ithistory during the period Post World War II to the Partition of India and Pakistan.

This is a book which all RSS and BJP activists should read to know the history of India of the relevant period leading to Partition. BJP leaders have taken objection to the book mainly for two reasons: 1. that Mr. Singh considers Jinnah a great man, 2. that Mr. Singh criticizes Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, who is by national consensus a great leader who unified the country.

Mr. Arun Jaitley and Mrs. Sushma Swaraj of the BJP are the most vocal ones in criticizing Mr. Singh. I have known Mr. Jaitley since his student days in Delhi University. He had a liberal education (he is a law graduate from Delhi University). He was very active in PUCL. He hardly ever missed a meeting of the Delhi PUCL. There were a few Marxists in the Delhi PUCL

and Mr. Jaitley was very close to one of them. Later, after the emergency imposed by Mrs. Gandhi came to an end and the Janata Party, of which Jaitley was an important member, came to power, Mr. Jaitley declined to join the Janata Party ministry. He told me one day that he would like to practice law under the guidance of people like V M. Tarkunde. It is at that time I felt that the BJP should have a young man like Mr. Jaitley as its leader. Today people like Mr. Arun Shourie want the RSS to activate the BJP. I feel strongly that this is not the correct recipe for the BJP to become strong in electoral politics in India. It is only young people like Mr. Arun Jaitley who can revive the party.

I could quote at length from Mr. Singh’s book that Jinnah got Pakistan without much effort but this review article would tax the patience of readers and editors of magazines to whom I’m planning to send this lengthy review for favour of publication. Let me however, start with a quotation from the book under the title Sunset of the Empire: The Lahore Resolution 23rd March 1940) – A Retrospect: From a negative construct one can scarcely extract a positive product. The seeds of a vivisection of India having been sown, ceaselessly year after year, as much by us (Hindus and Muslims) as by the post second world war, enfeebled the British for they did, of course, divide to rule, but we also divided ourselves, what else could follow but a destructive break-up?

I would then quote from Mr. Singh’s account of the AICC Meeting: R.C. Majumdar, in Struggle For Freedom, has expressed that in the course of his talks with party leaders Mountbatten was convinced that there was absolutely no prospect of an agreed solution on the basis of the Cabinet Mission plan, and that the partition of India on ‘communal lines was inevitable’. He succeeded in convincing both Patel and Nehru and gradually Congress leaders veered round to it. Azad, Moseley, and many others have condemned both Nehru and Patel on this account, and held them up as the real authors of the ill-fated Partition of India. But before denouncing Patel or Nehru and describing them as mere dupes of ‘wily Mountbatten’s clever maneuvering’, it is only fair to remember that the Congress had unanimously [also] passed resolutions, directly or indirectly conceding Pakistan, in 1934,1942,1945, and March 1947. Gandhi

28

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

FEBRUARY 2010

and Nehru had also referred to partition contingency as a very possible one.

The AICC meet of 14-15 June 1947 was held to adopt a resolution accepting the Mountbatten Plan of partition, as announced on 3 June. At this meeting, there were several voices of dissent raised against this proposed partition. Amongst such speakers was Chothram Gidwani from Sindh who was called to Delhi, on 14 and 15 bitterly criticized the solution as a total and abject surrender to the ‘blackmailing tactics of violence resorted to by the Muslim League under Jinnah’.

Amongst others of the Congress leadership that spoke were for example. Purushottamdas Tandon, who firmly stood out against the resolution till the very end, in a voice charged with emotion, shared his anguish with the delegates: This ‘Resolution is a counsel of weakness and despair. The Nehru government has been unnerved by the terror tactics of the Muslim League and an acceptance of Partition would be an act of betrayal and surrender. Let us rather suffer the continuation of the British Rule a little longer than sacrifice our cherished goal of a United India. Let us gird up our loins to fight, if need be both the British and Muslim League, and safeguard the integrity of the country’. The loud applause that greeted Tandon’s speech gave a note of warning to the Congress leadership. Of all the other interventions in this fateful meet, remarkable were those

by Lohia and Jayaprakash Narayan. In Lohia’s own words, ‘barring us two [himself and Jayaprakeash Narayan], Mahatma Gandhi and Abdul Gaffar Khan none spoke a single word in opposition to partition’.

‘Pandit Nehru told Michael Brecher, his biographer, (in 1956, the reasons for accepting the Partition of India): ‘Well, I suppose it was the compulsion of events and the feeling that we wouldn’t get out of that deadlock or morass by pursuing the way we had done; it became worse and worse. Further a feeling that even if we got freedom for India with that background, it would be very weak India; that is a federal India with far too much power in the federating units. A larger India would have constant troubles, constant disintegrating pulls. And also the fact that we saw no other way of getting our freedom-in the near future, I mean. And, so we accepted it and said, let us build up a strong India. And if others do not want to be in it, well how can we and why should we force them to be in it? However, as R.C. Majumdar comments, Pandit Nehru came nearer the truth in a 29

conversation with Mosley in 1960, when he said: “The truth is that we were tired men, and we were getting on in years too. Few of us could stand the prospect of going to prison again and if we had stood out for a united India as we wished it, prison obviously awaited us. We saw the fires burning in the Punjab and heard every day of the killings. The plan for partition offered a way out and we took it.”

Since Mr. Jaitley and other BJP stalwarts, have taken objection to Mr. Singh’s reference to Sardar Patel, let me quote M.N. Roy whose writings on the subject have been totally ignored by Jaswant Singh. M.N. Roy was an objective intellectual. Roy’s biographer, Prof. Sib Narayan Ray has mentioned that Roy at one stage submitted to the Viceroy a list of names of leaders (or those) who should be invited by the Viceroy to form an interim government in Delhi, to which the British could transfer power. Even though Roy was very inimical to the Brahmanical religion, he included the name of the founder of Hindutvavad, Savarkar in that list. It is important to mention that the BJP and RSS activists don’t read M.N. Roy though Roy acted in a non-partition manner in the matter because he put national interest above personal biases. Roy writes about Patel as follows: On his 74th birthday Nationalist India has done honour to the man who has been correctly described as the master-builder of her destiny… The integration of the States is the least of the Sardar’s achievements, although it is rated so very high. After the departure of the British, the princes were like helpless orphans. They had no option but to bow to their fate, and the Sardar certainly made it easier for them by his generosity at the cost of the Indian people. All this talk about bloodless revolution is sheer nonsense. It is equally an exaggeration to compare the Sardar with Bismark, although there may be much in common between the two men. If the de-facto leader of Indian nationalism is to be compared with any personality in European history, Machiavelli would be a more appropriate choice. How then can Sardar Patel be a follower of the Mahatma? And I believe that he is, as sincere as anybody else. The explanation is that Machiavelli was not a rogue and the Mahatma was a shrewd politician.

In any case, the fact is that there is none in the Congress to replace the Sardar. Therefore, on his 74th birthday, the

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

FEBRUARY 2010

thoughtful patriot should have been more anxious than prayerful. I remember that at the time of the Haripura Congress in 1937, a prominent non-political Gandhist wrote an article to speculate what would happen if the Mahatma preferred Samadhi to this world. Those who indulge in a similar speculation on the 74th birthday of Sardar Patel pay the highest tribute to him. I’m one of them. …It is two weeks since the virtual leader of Nationalist India passed away, leaving vacant a position that he had held for thirty years… The fact, nevertheless, is that, if the Mahatma was the Father of the Nation, it was his great discipline who conceived the idea of organizing a totalitarian party as the instrument for the establishment of an authoritarian State, both behind democratic facades… Therefore, Sardar Patel was the dictator of the party in power, and as such dominated the Government, though formally occupying the second place.

Could Sardar Patel have had his way also on the Kashmir issue, India would not be today spending 50% of her revenue on its military budget. I do not know what Sardar’s attitude to the Kashmir issue was but I am inclined to believe that it was as realistic as his attitude towards partition. Nevertheless, once the dice was cast by the gamblers’ ‘Megalomania’, the Sardar had no choice but to play the game, but one could be sure that he launched the stupidity clothed in the glamour of the popular hero. Mr. Singh perhaps needs to write another book, by quoting from various authorities about the partition and the role that Congress leaders played, to answer his critics in the BJP. I may however quote a few such authorities.

Let me start with M.N.Roy. Roy wrote an editorial in his weekly, Independent India, by way of paying homage to Jinnah after his death. Jinnah was the most maligned and misunderstood man and experiences had made him bitter and it was very largely out of spitefulness that he pursued an object, the attainment of which placed him in the most difficult position. Jinnah was not an Angel but he was temperamentally not a professional politician. Being a man of outstanding merit he could not remain a backbencher. Unfortunately his coming to the front rank of politics synchronized with the de-secularisation of nationalism, which doubtful development introduced communalism in politics. The responsibility for that

fateful turn in the political life of the country must be judged by history. But ever since then, politics became a game of wits for Jinnah. Successful in that game, thanks to his own cleverness, he won the opprobrium of being a henchman of imperialism. The fact, however, is that, if distrust and hatred of the British were the hallmark of patriotism, Jinnah was always as staunch a patriot as any other patriotic Indian. The more that fact was willfully ignored by his opponents, and he was maligned and misrepresented deliberately, the more was Jinnah naturally embittered, and spitefulness became the motive of his politics. But even then his ambition was not to gain political power but to avenge the wrong which he believed had been done to him. Once India was divided, he would sit back in his chair with the sardonic pleasure of having outwitted his opponents.

There was something Mephistophelian in Jinnah’s politics.

There is another authority which Mr. Singh has failed to refer to. This is the latest biography of Jinnah by an English man, Hector Belithe. I have, however, read only a review of the book written by Mr. Balraj Puri under the title “Clues to understanding Jinnah” (published in the Economic and Political Weekly, March 1, 2008). Mr. Puri has quoted fairly extensively from the book. I give below a few quotations from this review. In a press conference in Delhi in July 1947, when one of the reporters asked Jinnah, “Will Pakistan be a theocratic or a democratic state?” he answered, “Get that dirty nonsense out of your head.” The reporters were so furious that all of them walked out. Lord Wavell told the author the story of the ex-President of America, Hoover.

When he came to India he wished to see Gandhi and Jinnah. While Gandhi drove to call on Hoover, Jinnah said that he expected Hoover to come to him.

One Mr. D. Peel, an English man (of Lahore), told the author Belithe that Jinnah had three ambitions: 1. to become the highest paid lawyer in India, 2. to marry the most beautiful girl in India, 3. to become the President of the Congress.

Mr. Peel said that Jinnah’s interest in the Muslim League, his later opposition to the Congress and his desire to establish Pakistan were the outcome of the denial of his third ambition.

Mr. Singh’s book should be read in the context of what M.N.Roy and Jinnah’s biographer Belithe have written.

30

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

FEBRUARY 2010

Jinnah had always deeply resented Congress leaders.

The turning point in his career had come after the 1937 elections when Congress refused to share with him and this Muslim League the spoils of office in the Indian provinces where there was a substantial Muslim minority. Jinnah was a man of towering vanity and he took Congress’s action as a personal rebuke. It convinced him that he and the Muslim League would never get a fair deal from an India run by the Congress.

The former apostle of Hindu-Muslim unity became the unyielding advocate of Pakistan, the project he had labeled an “impossible dream” barely four years earlier.

Another historian, Lal Khan writes in his book, The Crisis in the Indian Sub-Continent: Can Partition be Undone! : A more improbable leader of India’s Muslim masses could hardly be imagined. The only thing Muslim about Mohammad Ali Jinnah was his parent’s religion. He drank, ate pork, religiously shaved his beard each morning and just as religiously avoided the mosque each Friday. God and the Koran had no place in Jinnah’s vision of the world. His political foe, Gandhi, knew more verses of the Muslim Holy Book than he did.

Jinnah had been able to achieve the remarkable feat of securing the allegiance of the vast majority of India’s Muslims without being able to articulate more than a few sentences in their traditional tongue, Urdu.

Jinnah despised India’s masses. He detested the dirt, the heat and the crowds of India. He delighted in touring India’s Muslim cities in princely processions, riding under victory arches on a kind of Rose bowl style float, preceded by silver-harnessed elephants and a band booming out “God save the King” because, Jinnah observed, it was the only tune the crowd knew. Jinnah had only scorn for his Hindu rivals. He labeled Nehru a Peter Pan, a “literary figure” who “should have been an English professor, not a politician”, “an arrogant Brahmin who covers his Hindu trickiness under a veneer of Western education.” Gandhi to Jinnah was “a cunning fox”, “a Hindu revivalist.” Jinnah never forgot the sight of the Mahatma in his mansion, stretched out on one of his priceless Persian carpets with his mudpack on his belly.

This was one of the greatest tragedies of the Indian History, Maulana Azad writes in his book, India Wins Freedom, and I have to say with the deepest regret that a

31

large part of the responsibility for this development rests with Jawaharlal. His unfortunate statement that Congress would be free to modify the Cabinet Mission Plan reopened the whole question of political and communal settlement. Mr. Jinnah took full advantage of his [Nehru’s] mistake and withdrew from the League’s early acceptance of the Plan.

In most of the works on Partition, Gandhi is portrayed as the crusader of unity. Azad, his close associate and the former President of Congress, in “India Wins Freedom” said about Gandhi’s position on Partition: “But when I met Gandhiji again, I had the greatest shock of my life to find that he had changed. He was still not openly in favor of Partition but he no longer spoke so vehemently against it. What surprised and shocked me even more was that he began to repeat the arguments which Sardar Patel had already used. For over two hours I pleaded with him, but could make no impression on him”.

Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel was India’s quintessential politician. He was an oriental Tammany Hall boss who ran the machinery of the Congress Party with a firm and ruthless hand. Patel had a well-earned reputation for ruthlessness. In his days as a practising lawyer, he was passed a cable announcing his wife’s death as he was pacing the floor of a Bombay courtroom summing up his case for the jury. He glanced at it, thrust it into his pocket, and continued his peroration. The incident formed a part of the legend of Vallabhbhai Patel and was indicative of the man. Emotion, one of his associates once observed, formed no part of his character. He was probably the most reactionary leader of Congress and was the first man in India to fall for Lord Mountbatten’s idea.

When Lord Mountbatten suggested that Partition might offer a solution to the present difficulty, he found Sardar Patel receptive to this. In fact, Sardar Patel was half in favor of Partition before Lord Mountbatten appeared on the scene. He was convinced that he could not work with the Muslim League. Azad describes the role of Patel in “India Wins Freedom”: “It would not perhaps be unfair to say that Vallabhbhai Patel was the founder of Indian Partition.”

Patel was very amenable to Lord Mountbatten’s charm and the power of his personality. Privately Mountbatten always referred to Patel as a walnut – a very hard crust

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

FEBRUARY 2010

outside but soft pulp once the crust was cracked. Azad continued: I was surprised when Patel said whether we liked it or not, there were two nations in India. He was now convinced that Muslims and Hindus could not be united into one nation. It was better to have one clean fight and then separate than have bickering everyday. I was surprised that Patel was now an even greater supporter of the two-nation theory than Jinnah. Jinnah may have raised the flag of Partition but now the real flag bearer was Patel.

When Patel was convinced, Lord Mountbatten turned his attention to Nehru. Again according to Azad: Jawaharlal was not first ready for the idea and reacted violently against the idea of Partition.

Lord Mountbatten persisted till Jawaharlal’s opposition was worn down step by step. Within a month of Mountbatten’s arrival in India, Jawaharlal, the firm opponent of partition had become, if not a supporter, at least acquiescent to the idea. I have wondered, writes Azad, how Jawaharlal was won over by Lord Mountbatten. He is a man of principle but he is also impulsive and amenable to personal influences. I think one factor responsible for the change was the personality of Lady [Edwina] Mountbatten. She is not only extremely intelligent but has a most attractive and friendly temperament. She admired her husband very greatly and in many cases tried to interpret his thoughts to those who would not at first agree with him.

Indian writers writing on India’s partition do not refer to two important things like 1. the massive human rights violation, thousands of women raped, millions displaced and living in refugee camps; 2. this devastation could have been prevented by Gandhi if he and the Congress had accepted Jinnah’s one demand, that the Muslim ministers in the cabinet in Delhi be selected by the Muslim League, i.e., by Jinnah.

If this demand were accepted India would not have been partitioned.

Prof. Bhikhu Parekh in his book Gandhi’s Political Philosophy’ in one chapter has given an account of Lord Wavell’s meeting with Jinnah & Gandhi: Seeing that Jinnah was adamant, Gandhi argued that respect for feelings and opinions of those involved demanded that at least a plebiscite should be held in the

Muslim majority areas. In the Punjab, for example, non-Muslims made up nearly 47 percent of the population and, as the 1937 elections had shown, not all Muslims shared Jinnah’s views. Jinnah summarily dismissed Gandhi’s proposal on the grounds that it presupposed the liberal-individualist view of democracy he had already rejected. Only Muslims were entitled to decide their future, and the rest must either stay on as a minority or emigrate.

Self-determination as he understood it was a ‘national’ not a ‘territorial’ concept, he observed.

For his part, Gandhi was not prepared to budge an inch from his basic position that the Congress represented the Muslims as well. Lord Wavell told him in a personal interview that the ‘only stumbling block’ to the settlement was the inclusion of a nationalist Muslim in the interim government. He conceded that the Congress had the ‘undoubted right to nominate a nationalist Muslim’, but suggested that since Jinnah was obstinate, there was perhaps no harm in waiving it. Gandhi replied, ‘One may waive a right, one cannot waive a duty’. The following day in a letter summarizing their conversation of the previous day, Gandhi wrote to Wavell: You recognized fully the reasonableness of the Congress position, but you held that it would be an act of high statesmanship if the Congress waive the right for the sake of peace. I urged that if it were a question of waiving a right it would be a simple thing. It was a question of non-performance of a duty which the Congress owed to non-League Muslims.

Mr. Singh in his book opens up new questions like: Could partition be avoided? Is it or is it not a fact that Jinnah outwitted all the politicians including Gandhi in India on the question of partition and succeeded in establishing the largest Islamic state?

My review article may be read in the context of recently published book The Great Partition: the Making of India and Pakistan, Yale University and Penguin, 2007, by Yasmeen Khan, a book backed by massive scholarship and massive research. The main thesis of the book is that the partition of India in 1947 promised its people both political freedom and a future free of religious strife.

Instead, the geographical divide effected an even greater schism, exposing huge numbers of the population to devastating consequences. Thousands of women were raped. At least one million people were killed and ten to

32

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

FEBRUARY 2010

fifteen million were forced to leave their homes to live as refugees. It was the bloodiest events of de-colonization in the 20th century. My thesis (I have written about this aspect elsewhere in my article in Mainstream) is that Gandhi could have stopped this devastation.

(I am grateful to the author of the book Crisis in the Indian subcontinent: Can Partition be Undone? by Mr. Lal Khan & his publisher Aakar Books, New Delhi, for

making it possible for me to quote what Mr. Azad wrote in his book India Wins Freedom.

I am also grateful to Prof. Rajeev Verma, former Professor of English Literature at the University of Delhi, my daughter Sangeeta Mall and my young friend Mr. Mahi Pal Singh for giving a number of suggestions.

However, I am responsible for the views expressed in this review article).

BOOKS PUBLISHED BY RENAISSANCE PUBLISHERS, INDIAN RENAISSANCE INSTITUTE, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS and OTHERS —BY M.N. ROY 1. POLITICS, POWER AND PARTIES

RS. 90.00

2. SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY

RS.95.00

3. BEYOND COMMUNISM

RS.40.00

4. THE HISTORICAL ROLE OF ISLAM

RS.40.00

5. MEN I MET

RS.60.00

6. INDIA’S MESSAGE

RS.100.00

7.MATERIALISM

RS.110.00

8.REVOLUTION AND COUNTER REVOLUTION IN CHINA

RS.250.00

9.REASON, ROMANTICISM AND REVOLUTION

RS.300.00

10. NEW ORIENTATION

RS 090.00

11. ISLAAM KI ETIHASIK BHOOMIKA (IN HINDI)

RS.25.00

12. HAMARA SANSKRITIK DARP (IN HINDI)

RS.40.00

13. NAV MANAVWAD (IN HINDI)

RS.90.00

14 .SAMMYAWAD KE PAAR (IN HINDI)

RS.45.00

33

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

FEBRUARY 2010

Humanist News Section: I [Editor’s Note: The first paragraph of the following news was left from publishing in the last month. It is thereore, being repeated here for the readers to avoid the confusion.]

Indian Radical Humanist Association (Gujarat unit) Youth Convention held Radical Humanist Association (Gujarat) Indian had organized a Youth Convention on 9

th

December, 2009 at Ahmedabad. The subject of the convention was “Obstacles to World Peace,” “Humanism and Scientific Temper” and “Position of Women in our Society.” Dr. Sudarshan Iyangar (Vice-Chancellor, Gujarat Vidhyapith) inaugurated the convention and spoke on Gandhi, Peace and Education.

Thereafter, veteran Radical Humanist Prof. Dhaval Mehta and Prof. Jayanti Patel delivered their views on Humanism and Scientific Temper. Dhaval Mehta while discussing the clash of religion and scientific aptitude, emphasized on developing a rational thinking which will curb anti-scientific attitude. Jayanti Patel laid stress on birth rights, equality and no exploitation. While speaking on the subject “Humanism and Scientific Temper” Vinod Jain President IRHA drew attention to

scientists like Copernicus Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Darwin and Mendel whose work during the European Renaissance dissipated the ignorance and darkness of the Middle Ages. Einstein and others in our age completed the Mission. M.N. Roy, modern Indian’s only philosopher defined philosophy as a science of sciences.

He gave the philosophy of New Humanism based on the knowledge of modern science. It says search for truth and quest for freedom have been two basic endeavors of man throughout history. It says because life as well as man has evolved out of physical nature, and because the universe around is law-governed, therefore the ability to be rational and moral is innate in his. These factors make it possible to improve the lot of entire humanity. The present 40 young students heard both the speakers with rapt attention.

In the afternoon session Dr. Illa Pathak (President, Ahmedabad Women’s Action Group (AWAG) and Dr. Pushpa Motiyani (Head Shanti Sansodhan Kendra, Gujarat Vidhyapith) detailed the position women in our society.

Then award ceremony of Gujarat participants for essay competition was held. Dr. Vidhyut Joshi (Former Chancellor of Bhavnagar University) gave away the prizes to the award winning students of Gujarat.

Winners of Essay Competition of Gujarat: (1) Gohil Charan A. (Rajkot) (2) Khuman Miral B. (Surendranagar) (3) Bhalia Kishorbhai Samanthbhai (Vanda Dist.

Amarali) (4) Bhambhor Shaileshbhai Kanubhai (Ahmedabad) (5) Dhaval Dholakiya (Junagadh) (6) Tanna Shradha Mukeshbhai (Rajkot) The Youth Convention presented perspectives like the struggle between religions and science, humanism and humanitarian attitude, human rights violation and the status of women.

Gautam Thaker General Secretary IRHA (Gujarat), (079-26641353) Jivraj Park area, Opp. Malav Talav, Mobile: 98253 82556.

Ahmedabad-380 051.

34

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

FEBRUARY 2010

II M.N. Roy Memorial Essay Writing Competition Prize Distribution Ceremony 2009-2010 to be held on 30th January 2010 in Jaipur, Rajasthan Radical Humanist Association, Indian Rajasthan Unit, has declared under the able

Thanvi Memorial Award.

3. Mistry Bhavika Amulakbhai Bhuj, Kuchch Dr. Ladu Ram Joshi Memorial Award.

4. Dwivedi Ishwar N. Ahmedabad, Guj. Ishwar Mal Bafna Memorial Award.

5. Harish Tanki Anuradha Porbandar, Guj. Yogeshwar Memorial Award.

6. Algotar Malu Bhai Hami Bhai Junagarh, Guj. Shyam Das Joshi Memorial Award.

7. Dr. T.N. Saher Wala, Godhra, Guj.,U.R. Bhandari Memorial Award.

8. Km. Anu Garg Tatiri, Baghpet Veda Sharma Memorial Award.

9. Rishabh Km. Murdia Udaipur, Raj. Ram Chandra Dalvi Memorial Award.

10. Surendra Km. Saini Chomu, Raj.Prakash Lodha Memorial Award.

11. Rajesh Km. Sain Jaipur, Raj. Kishan Prasad Memorial Award.

12. Smt. Lila Ji Sajjan Ji Salecha Jalgaon, 425003 Brahma Nand Memorial Award.

13. Smt. Saroj Golecha Sanvad, 451111 Mohan Chhagani Memorial Award.

14. Anil Km. Jain Kota, Raj. Ram Chandra Bodayu Memorial Award.

15. Pawan Km. Jain Jhalawad, Raj. Uday Kishan Vyas Memorial Award.

16. Smt. Ritu Kacholiya Ajmer, Raj. Shiv Prasad Memorial Award.

guidance of Prof. Chandmal Sharma the M.N. Roy Memorial Essay Writing Competition Results. The Prizes will be distributed by Justice Shri Manish Bhandari on 30th January 2010 at Scout Headquarters, Ram Nivas Bagh, Jaipur at 3p.m. sharp.

The details of the prize winners are as follows: · Mudasir Nazar, M.A. (Pol. Sc.) 1st yr. student from Kashmir University, J&K, has received Harmal Memorial I prize of Rs. 5000/-. · Nidhi Gupta, B.Ed student from R.G. (P.G.) College, Meerut, U.P., has received V.M. Tarkunde Memorial II prize of Rs. 4000/-. · Yenneti Komalirani, an Environment Specialist from Ahmedabad, Gujarat, has received W.S. Kane Memorial III prize of Rs. 3000/-. · Arshi Ansari, M.A. (Pol. Sc.) 2nd Year student from R.G. (P.G.) College, Meerut, U.P., has received Narendra Sharma Memorial IV prize of Rs. 2000/·Gopal Chaudhury from Madanganj, Ajmer, Rajasthan, has received Dr. Chhagan Mehta Memorial V prize of Rs. 1000/-. · Gohil Charan from Panderi, Bhavnagar, Gujarat, has won the Dasharath Bhai Memorial VI prize of Rs. News sent by Ugamraj Mohnot, 1000/-.

Co-ordinator, M.N. Roy Memorial Essay Writing Besides these, 16 other prizes of Rs. 500/- each, were Competition, also declared. Among these, there are two house-wives Jaipur, Rajasthan of ages 55 and 54, a Doctor and a Mistry respectively.

Some of the participants were from the remote villages of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and III Maharashtra.

Following are the names of the 16 Rs. 500/- each, prize Seminar held at Najibabad winners with their City/State and the names of Memorial Awards: ndian Radical Humanist Association (IRHA), 1. Nimawat Vipul Km. Rajkot, Guj. Parasmal and Humanist Youth Forum had organised a Khinvasara Memorial Award.

Seminar on 11th November, 2009 at Najibabad. The 2. Ridhi A. Tada Amrut Bhai Jamnagar, Guj. Ramji subject of the seminar was “Women: Status and

I

35

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

FEBRUARY 2010

Direction�

Shri K.A. Agrawal (Manager), Dr. Y.N. Dwivedi (Principal), Dr. Vidu, Dr. A.D. Jaiswal (Convener), Dr. Balram Singh (Organizer), Sahu Jain College, Najibabad organized this under the banner of IRHA.

It also happened to be the Education Day. Shri Vinod Jain explained about Humanism and Scientific Temper. He emphasised the need for learning, that helps attain freedom.

A number of students had made posters regarding status of women in our society. Prizes were distributed.

News sent by Rahul Jain

IV An Appeal by Center for Inquiry, India Dear friends, Kindly send urgent letters to Central Sahitya Academy at Delhi and Human Rights Commission at Hyderabad (Mozamjahi Road, Hyderabad 500001) asking them not to stop the decision of awarding the novel Draupadi, a novel in Telugu by Dr. Lakshmi Prasad.

Here is a protest from Hindu fundamentalists to stop the award announced to the novel Draupadi by Dr. Yarlagadda Lakshmi Prasad, former member of Rajya Sabha and present Chairman of Hindu Academy in Andhra Pradesh. His novel Draupadi has undergone 6 editions and was serialized in a Telugu weekly already.

The Pragnya Bharathi, a Hindu fanatic association approached Justice Sudarshan Reddi, who is chairing the Human Rights Commission in Andhra Pradesh with a request to stop the Award. He gave instructions to the Central Government to stop the Award and asked the reasons for giving award to the novel Draupadi.

Center for Inquiry, India, has protested for the action of Human Rights Commission and said that the fundamentalist Hindu organization was thwarting the freedom of the writer. We also have said that similar actions are already on record where fanatic Hindu organizations are curbing the freedom of expression in the name of Hindu culture.

The writer Dr. Lakshmi Prasad is a reputed professor of Hindi from Andhra University who has also written the biography of Hariwansha Rai Bachchan (father of Amitabha Bachchan) and several other books. Here is an extract from a local daily about the news: Hyderabad, The function was inaugurated by Shri Vinod Jain Jan. 11: The State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) (President, IRHA). Then, some 25 students, both girls on Monday directed the Secretary of Information and and boys, shared their views.

Broadcasting Ministry to submit a report on the

36

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

FEBRUARY 2010

selection of the book Draupadi in the Best-Novel Category by Central Sahitya Academy and also to consider postponing the awards’ ceremony by Sahitya Academy, which is scheduled to be held on February 16.

The directions were issued in response to a petition which mentioned that the book, written by the A.P. Hindi Academy Chairman and former Rajya Sabha member, Mr. Yarlagadda Laxmi Prasad, described Draupadi as a “sex maniac” all through the book. The petition filed by members of the Pragnya Bharathi questioned the selection by a jury which included the former governor, Ms. Rama Devi, Mr. B. Ramabrahmam and Mr. Kalipatnam Ramarao who were well versed in Telugu.

“In an attempt to see the character of Draupadi from a different perspective, Mr. Laxmi Prasad went to the extremes of perversion,” said Ms. Vijaya Bharathi, an advocate and a member of Pragnya Bharathi.

Ms. Bharathi said if the book is conferred with the Sahitya Academy award, it would desecrate the sanctity of the awards. One of the petitioners, Dr. V. Nageshwar, said the book was full of perverted descriptions and humiliated Draupadi.

Appeal sent by N. Innaiah Phone: 91-40-23544067

V Seminar on Media and Superstitions in Ahmedabad, Gujarat Mumbai Rationalist Association in Gujarat association with other voluntary agencies, including IRHA, PUCL (Gujarat Unit) had organised a half-day seminar on “Media and Superstitions” chaired

by Yashwantbhai Mehta, a noted writer, on 25-12-09 at Ahmedabad.

Other speakers were Ms. Ilaben Pathak, a veteran activist on women’s issues and Manishi Jani, a well-known activist. All decried the role of media in spreading superstitions.

Prof. Ashwin Karia, President of Gujarat Mumbai Association, deplored the role of the state. He said, though our state is constitutionally secular, but it is also responsible for spreading superstitions. The house urged the state Government to pass anti-superstitions’ legislation.

At the end, Kiran Trivedi, Mukund Sindhav, (Secretaries of the Association) Girish Sundhia, (Treasurer), Bhikhabhai Amin, Ms. Minaxi Joshi led demonstrations with banners in hand on the road, attracting public attention and demanding the Government to stop superstitions to prevent exploitation of people.

News sent by Gautam Thaker, Secretary, IRHA (Gujarat) Dated. 16-01-2010

Read,

NAV MANAV a Bimonthly in Hindi for Humanist & Renascent Thought

By U.R. MOHNOT D-98 A, Krishna Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur-15, Ph. 91-141-2621275 Dear Madam Rekhaji, I wish you a very Happy New Year to you and your entire staff too. Recently, I received your Jan 10 issue.

Madam, I have keen interest to participate in various activities of your Gujarat Unit. So, please send me the contact addresses of your Gujarat Unit Members. Lessons of Telangana - very interesting article. Thanks for the same. —Atul K. Raval, 7, Muktimangal Tenaments, Thaltej Char Rasta, Tahltej, Ahmedabad 380054

37

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

FEBRUARY 2010

The following three pages, 38-40, carry two of the many letters written by M.N. Roy while corresponding with Dr. Reddy, former Vice Chancellor of Andhra University. These are rare as they have not been published elsewhere. More of this correspondence will follow in the coming issues of the RH. Dr. N. Innaiah has made all efforts to obtain them from the family members of Dr. Reddy. —Editor

38

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

FEBRUARY 2010

39

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

FEBRUARY 2010

40

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

FEBRUARY 2010 —SUBSCRIPTION RATES—

In SAARC Countries:

For one year-Rs. 180.00 For two years-Rs. 300.00 For three years-Rs. 400.00 Life subscription-Rs. 1500.00

In other Countries:

Annual subscription (Air Mail) $ 75.00 GBP 50.00

Note:

Direct transfer of subscription amount from abroad may be sent to SWIFT CODE Number CNRBINBBAMHB in the Current Account Number

0349201821034 at Canara Bank, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi, 1100014, India.

Cheques should be in favor of The Radical Humanist, For outstation cheques: Please add Rs. 25.00 to the total. Cheques and information regarding the money transfer from abroad may be Posted to: Mr. Narottam Vyas (Treasurer), Chamber No. 111, (Near Post Office) Supreme Court of India, New Delhi-110001 Contact phone number 91-11-23782836 (Chamber) 91-11-22712434 (Res.) 09811944600 (Mobile)

SUBSCRIPTION FORM The Manager, The Radical Humanist

C/o Mr. Narottam Vyas (Treasurer) Chamber No. 111, (Near Post Office) Supreme Court of India New Delhi-110001 Dear Sir, I/We wish to be enrolled as subscriber/s for The Radical Humanist for a period of one year/two years/three years/life.

Name...........................................................................................................

Address........................................................................................................

Phone No.....................................................................................................

E-mail.........................................................................................................

Thanking you.

Yours faithfully,