Girls are just living things in today's bride market

    Man-woman relations are as old as their existence on the earth and that’s natural. From the very beginning and inception of this universe, they aligned  naturally to procreate and preserve the human race. The oldest reference that comes to mind of such union is of Adam and Eva. What may theology say, it is principally proved and true that all living organisms procreate to survive and expand their number for their existence. Primitively, as we witness in the animals, birds and other organisms, these relationships were chiefly akin to that of animalistic coitus and strikingly in occurrence among the humans, where men and women used to live freely without any prohibition to wander, lovemaking, copulate and procreate. Since nature has bestowed the role to woman to bear and rear the child, her role was more prominent. The clan developed around her and she was pivotal to it. Her position was magnanimous and she was Centre, around which family and social group arisen. With time, her role saw sea change but the role of bearing and rearing of the child was unchangeable and irreplaceable which was given to her by the nature. The society passed through different stages and phases of social development and with that her position and authority also continued to be transformed predominately against her. The social development has never been uniform in any part of the world. Today, we find all forms of the societal and human relationships ranging from primitive free living to today’s complex man-women relationships.

Polygyny is the most common type of polygamous practice involving one husband with multiple wives. Some famous historical instances of polygyny include kings like Rajaraja Chola I around 1000 AD who had numerous consorts, and the wealthy landlord JC Bose of Kolkata who married more than a 100 times. Polygamy has existed in the Indian subcontinent since ancient times, largely driven by religious beliefs, socio-economic factors and cultural norms of various communities. References to polygamy are found in ancient Hindu scriptures and texts like the Upanishads, Puranas and epics Ramayana and Mahabharata. Kings and warriors often had multiple wives for political alliance and expanding progeny. The arrival of Islam in India normalized polygyny practices under religious sanction. Mughal emperors and Nawabs had large harems with hundreds of wives and concubines. Concubinage was also prevalent across communities. Even in modern India, polygamy persists among certain Muslim sects and indigenous tribal communities. Some reasons for continued polygamous marriages are producing male heirs, cementing political and business alliance, religious sanction and cultural acceptance.

Polyandry involves one wife marrying multiple husbands. Fraternal polyandry was traditionally practiced in some Hindu communities like the Todas of Nilgiris to mitigate division of property. The wife would be shared by all the brothers in a family. It has been observed that some Hindu communities practiced polyandry to control population and land division. Overall, polyandry has been relatively rare in India owing to its taboo status in both Hindu and Islamic traditions.

Sexual relations in primitive times were likely influenced by survival needs, kinship structures, and cultural practices. These societies often had communal living arrangements, with less emphasis on monogamy and more fluid sexual norms. The concept of marriage as we understand it today might not have existed, and sexual behaviour was likely regulated by social customs and rituals.

India is a land of diversity. Hence, the rules of marriage were never generalized. Every religion had its own set of rules, customs and traditions. However, with respect to polygamy, they all shared the same sentiment. Monogamy was the preferred system of marriage but polygamy was allowed under specific circumstances.

    During the Vedic period, Upanishads, sutras and smritis governed the regulation of marriage amongst Hindus. It was believed that a Hindu husband is permitted to marry again during the lifetime of his wife, though such marriage, when contracted without just cause, is strongly disapproved. Manu has justified this suppression of wife and remarriage during her lifetime on the basis of barrenness, ill-health, ill-temper, and misconduct on the wife’s part. This suppression of the first wife has been justified and explained in Mitakshara and Subodhini. Manu says, “A wife who drinks any spurious liquors, who acts immorally, who shows hatred to her lord, who is incurable of a disease, who is mischievous, who wastes his property, may at all times be superseded by another wife. A barren wife may be superseded in the eighth year, she who brings forth stillborn children or whose children die all infants die in the tenth, she who brings forth only daughters in the eleventh and she who speaks unkindly, without delay.” Manu has also stated that the first wife is married from a sense of duty and the others are regarded as married from sexual motives.

The British brought about a change in the Indian society and how marriage was practiced. Amongst other social reforms, polygamy was also banned vide section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Later on after independence, the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 prohibited polygamy as a practice among Hindus. Muslims, however, could still have four wives.

    The societal attitudes toward polygamy have undergone change over the decades. While largely accepted earlier, modern education and values have generated greater resistance to the practice. Polygamy is seen to enforce gender inequality, undermine women’s status and cause disadvantages for children. However, pockets of Indian society still accept polygamy as a pragmatic. Over time, with the development of civilizations and the rise of organized religions, attitudes towards sexuality evolved. Many societies began to formalize marriage, often as a means of property transfer, alliance building, and social stability. Religious institutions played a significant role in codifying sexual norms and practices, often promoting monogamy and discouraging extramarital relationships.

Today’s era is altogether different from the ancient times and what was practiced a few decades back. But fact remains that the status of women is still not equal to man in mate selection. It is highly oriented by the male psych and predominance. Today’s so-called modern societies across the castes and religion has reduced the mate selection is predominantly a bride market. Although this market is not equitable for all the adult males. Now family lineage, education and economic status, business and job of the males determine the better access to brides in the market. Although, the same things and determinants have given a leap and influence to girls but to a limited extent.

Girls whether they are educated or otherwise, having good job or not are paraded before the families of males as if animals on sale in a livestock fair. They are posed with an unending questionnaire. Her credentials of character, prettiness, good and sharp features, education, homeliness, whether she knows cooking and other domestic chores etc. are tested by the potential bridegroom and his family.

A girl in most homes is mere a living thing whom one day will depart the family by imposing waste of precious resources and huge investment of wealth in her marriage and perhaps therefore, her birth is considered largely as an omen. Investment on her rearing and education is considered as a burden. Moreover, finding and selection of a mate for her is taken as a challenge. Her conduct, mingling with her peers particularly males and her movements in the society are under strict vigil  and supervision. Her existence is just a burdensome happening with parents and family. The worry of parents enhances on her getting puberty and from that point of time, an elaborate exercise starts to find a spouse for her against her will, choice or say. This malaise is more emphatic in the middle class and neo-upper middle class. They talk big of equity, fairness, ills of dowry and of social values but in practice they behave quite differently; needs well educated, beautiful, all-rounder in all fields such as good manners, manage households, caregiver, street smart, work outside to garner income, restricted outside contacts, seek the concurrence of her activities and so on. For groom, she should be akin to a diva, pretty doll, soft spoken, not mingle with males of home and surroundings and act like a slut in bed. She is supposed to adhere with the unwritten dictates of the family and norms constructed against the females, always be a giver and raise no voice.

We are now in the end of the first quarter of 21st century but our behaviour, conduct and aspirations are not much far behind the feudalistic societal mindset. We are talking about human values, equality, transparency in conducting ourselves in society, priorities to fairer sex but mentally inclined to regressive approach to life particularly for women and girls. Double standards are the hallmark of our personality and our treatment to our girls. Our attitude and mindset is a stumbling block for the construction of just and fair social order.  How hypocrites we are!

 

 

Honour killing; a blot on the society

    The thought of honour and shame and their use as justification for violence and killing is not unique to any one culture or religion. Indeed, honour and honour-based violence are reflected in every society primarily rural societies. Honour killings have been known since ancient times, where senior male within a household, retained the right to kill an unmarried but sexually active daughter or an adulterous wife. Honour killing in India has its origin since ancient ages where people committed homicide of their female family member and portray such murders as an act done to protect the honour of the family. Honour killings has emerged mostly as gender based crime and has been used as a tool to retain patriarchal dominance in the society over women folk. But, this does not mean that the man has been left completely untouched by this evil. There are also incidents of killing of men folk mostly of the down trodden segment of the society who are involved with the girls of the influential families and of upper castes. A typical trend in honour killings has been observed and that is killing of the girl in each single case. If boy belongs to lower caste, then both boy and girl are culled to kill. But if the boy of higher caste no girl of lower caste, there are chances of boy escaping the wrath of social lords.  Normally, it is noticed that daughters, daughter-in-laws, wives, etc. are killed mostly for reasons like talking to another man, involving in adulterous relationships, pre-marital affairs, marrying on their own will, etc.

    The chief reasons behind honour killings are patriarchy, dominant caste system and caste endogamy. The other reasons noticed in the society for honour killing are highly stratified social order, mental outlook, khap panchayats, skewed sex ratio, inter caste marriages, absence of socio-political movements, lack of intent of government and government institutions and non consideration of present day socio-economic development which provided an opportunity for mingling of people of either sex at work places, educational institutions and new urban dwellings. The roots of honour killing lies in the view that honour of man are linked with his woman and can be hampered because of her conduct. It is because of this notion that they started putting restrictions on woman. Woman and her sexuality became the property of man. Later, this idea was associated with caste system or clan or gotra and thus gave rise to defiance to inter-caste marriage or to marriages done within same gotra. Most of the owner killing cases are associated with marriages. Any change in conduct of society is seen as bringing down the honour of family, tribe or community and only way that seem possible to people to regain such honour is sacrifice of the member of their own family in the name of honour killing.

    The social order is highly imperious and advocates for alien treatment with the other castes and segments particularly for the matrimony predominantly in rural areas but the neo-urbanisation is not free from this malaise and infectious leanings of caste and gotras. Almost all marriages whether arranged or so called self choice are solemnised within caste. Egalitarian segments of the society although has broken this myth but here too barrier of economic consideration is profoundly existing. Meaning thereby economic status acts as a newly constructed caste. 

    Since new economic activities necessitated the compulsion of essential interaction in the new social milieu of the men-women, boys-girls at work place or institutions or residential dwellings. More people are now coming out of their homes including women and girls of all sections of the society to work or for some other activities and this new advent has provided opportunities to mingle with each other freely in the cross section of human oriented  activities. Popularity of social media and its vehement use as a tool of communication and entertainment has bridged the gap significantly and brought the people more closer in the faceless mould. It is apparent that social interactions give rise to the newer possibilities of the man-woman contacts and development of relationships. Amongst this large section, a few couple decide to enter in the matrimonial bond which is quite natural which is not acceptable to the patriarchal and feudal mindset of the society. They are pursuance  either to break the relationship or ready to be sacrificed their lives. This social outlook bred the eloping from home and seek the protection from courts and police. Some couple get success in getting the protection but most fell to the prey of the self proclaimed social leaders or khaps or the parents in the garb of protecting family honour and mercilessly killed. Despite socio-economic growth, the feudal mindset has not changed. Every now and then news of such extra-judicial killings are becoming headlines of the newspapers. Interestingly,  High Courts have fixed benches and days for such protection cases but until social change in terms of accepting such marriage is not happens, courts alone can’t break much ice. 

    Numerous girls have been killed in the name of honour of family or caste over the years in Haryana and other northern states but the demon of  honour killings is still not satiated. It raises its hood when sense such dissemination of love in two consenting hearts. Recently, lives of three youths in Kaithal and Karnal in the name of honour have been snatched. Haryana is infamous for such gory killings and this monster has raised its sting once again and taken away the three precious young lives. As discussed above, the genesis of this criminal mindset rest in the highly intolerance, irrational social behaviour and eulogised thought of family honour. These two incidents in a single day are indicative of how our social system is regressive and feudalistic which permits the parents to  turn monster for their own children and not hesitate to take away their lives. The reasons behind such atrocious thinking are absence of social discourse, no freedom to an individual to choose the mate or life partner and no fear of law. These two incidents depict the true mindset of society. The problem of barbaric thought is more societal than legal and needs to be addressed primarily at the level of society; besides taking stringent panel action against the criminals. Its high time for the social organisations and the government to curb this criminal mindset emphatically. But, there is no significant voice against the honour killings in the society. Will the Alambardar of the society or political leaders of all hues think over it? Will this medieval mindset change or take away more lives of the girls or couple who innocently involve in the love as the most sane feeling of a human?

Honour killing- a regressive medieval mindset of Haryanvi society!

Dictionary meaning of the honour killing is a murder committed by a male on a female relative considered to have brought dishonour to the family, usually through sexual activity forbidden by religion or tradition. The deliberate pre‐planned murder, usually of a woman, by or at the behest of members of her family motivated by a perception that she has brought shame on the family. The female in the Indian rural society particularly is considered as a thing or asset who is owned by his family,, not a living being. Although mindset is not far changed in urban areas also as most of the towns and cities now expanded on the selective migration of rural people because of jobs, business, educational access or of numerous such reasons. Interestingly, the people moved in cities chosen to live in clusters where the traditional thoughts are prevalent as that of villages. The shifting in the cities only changed the living pattern as facilities of various kind is easily accessible. Even the so called educated people adorning high positions in government or private sector, universities and colleges, trade or business and have tremendous influence on society and have discrete political affiliations, are the socio-political influencers who have great say in the area they reside. Abstractly, it may be said that situation is not much different in urban and rural areas if it is concerned with the honour of family or the society.

Honour killing is a centuries old malaise which is generally termed as custom or tradition is still prevalent in our societies. In several northern Indian states, such as Punjab, Rajasthan, Haryana, the western region of Uttar Pradesh, and Bihar, the incidents of honour killing are periodically reported. Religion, caste, community, and traditional attitudes are the most essential factors in an honour killing. Honour killing largely involves girls or women marrying against the parent's wishes, having extramarital, premarital relationships whether consensual or non-consensual, marrying inside the same gotra or outside one's position or marrying a cousin from an alternate position. Honour killing has emerged as a gender based crime, chiefly. Haryana is comparatively a small state in the close vicinity of national capital which is an axis of national politics and seat of central government. Haryana boasts of leap in agriculture and industrial growth and central to all the movements being near to Delhi. Unfortunately, Haryana is poor in social indicators particularly affecting the fair sex. When its growth is mapped on the richness of social development, it looks like a tribal society. The national fame comic poet Jaimini Haryanvi finds glorification in his recite that “Haryana is a land where lovers found hanged on the tree”. A typical pattern has been witnessed in the honour killings in Haryana that if girl is of higher caste and boy from lower caste, both are killed. If boy is from higher caste and girl is from lower caste, generally girl is killed. If both boy and girl have lineage in upper caste, there is possibility of compromise. It clearly indicates that societal norms for women and lower castes or dalits are quite different. Those who participate in honour killing often justify their act by stating that their action will provide deterrence to others and will prevent them from committing such an act which will bring disgrace to their family and society. From the past, the price to protect the honour of the family was always paid by woman folk, who were seen as weak and dependent, are shouldered with the responsibility to maintain purity and honour of the family.

The concept of caste system and endogamy are the major determinant of mate selection. The mindset of the people whether in rural areas or people shifted from villages to urban centers, their thoughts govern by caste. Generally no marriage alliance is permissible outside the caste. This is the major root cause of the honor killing. Because of access to education in schools, colleges or institutions or jobs has necessitated the living of youths outside in the hostels, PGs or other rented accommodations and this dimension has allowed them to freely interact and mingle despite the consideration of castes or religion. Living together and continuous interactions led the youths in developing friendship, relationships, love interests as natural vent of mutual feelings and emotions. The changed situations demands for the change of outlook and mindset but unfortunately that's not existing in the society. Parents, guardians, community leaders and khaps are the deterrent to the budding relationships mutually by consent amongst the youths. The caste system and endogamy prevalent in the society prove as an abhorrent factor and compel the youths either to finish the relations or ready to be died. Khap Panchayat over decade has created their villainous image and has turned into an institution which won’t hesitate to go to any extent in order to satisfy their ego. However, with the passage of time there has been considerate change in the thoughts and rituals of Khap Panchayat and might be seen in near future as an institution which will oppose honour killings rather than promote it.  

The news of killing three youths in Kaithal and Karnal in the name of honour was appeared in the newspapers on 17th September, 2023. The news is highly disturbing. In earlier years several such killing have been reported from different parts of the state. To name a few, such as Manoj-Babli (2010) in a village of Kaithal, Monica-Rinku of Neemriwali (2010), Murti Devi of Kansala (Rohtak) in 2014, Sarita Devi of Naraunkhera village of Gohana, Sonepat in 2014, Ravinder and his wife of Dhrana in Jhajhjhar who were killed by their parents and relatives on the concealed dictate of Khap panchayats.

Marriage of Satish of Kheri Maham and Kavita of Bhagi-Bahrod was annulled by such so called khap panchayat and the couple was ordered to be brother-sister despite having a child out of this wedlock. Similarity,  in village Siwaha of Panipat district, lower caste couple was dictated to dissolve their solemnized marriage or face the consequence. These are a few cases only which have been quoted. In fact there are numerous incidents of honor killing are happening in Haryana over the years. National Crime Record Bureau (NCRB) reported 25 cases in its report of 2020 of honor killing. Because most cases are classified as suicides or accidental deaths or registered under different sections of the IPC, the correct record of honour killing cases is not maintained. The genesis of this criminal mindset rest in the highly intolerance, irrational social behavior and eulogized thoughts of family honour. These incidents are indicative of how our social system is regressive and feudalistic which permits the parents to turn monster for their own children and not hesitate to take away their lives. The reasons behind such atrocious thinking are absence of social discourse, no freedom to an individual to choose the life partner and no fear of law.

Courts has dealt these cases sternly and awarded exemplary punishments for honour killing. The decisions of the courts are not proving deterrent for the perpetrators of honour killings. The rigid caste system and imperious religious boundaries, traditional mindset, pseudo social values, no discourse on the social values and evils, no voice of female in mate selection, patronage of khap panchayats and social and political leaders which are responsible for this regressive medieval thinking are not questioned. Fact is that there is practically no social movement or social churning in the society which oppose this brutal tendency of killers which relegates the humans at the lower pedestal than the animals. The Haryanvi society is in the state of inertia which is silent on the social issues and the leaders both of khaps and political parties are involved in seeking the dividends of political power. The problem of barbaric thought is more societal than legal and needs to be addressed primarily at the level of society; besides taking stringent panel action against the criminals.

It is the stark reality that new social-economic, educational dimensions have opened the gates for more vigorous cross social contacts at the places of education or work places or mixed habitats in urban areas. Interactions and unbridled mingling of the young boys and girls, man and women across the castes and religion is unstoppable. Social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, snapchat, telegram, Instagram and numerous other have provided the potent weapon in the hands of the people particularly young generation for unabated, unceasing and round the clock contact and interactions. If interactions unfathomed and unrestricted and; which cannot be contained and bounded in today's scenario, relationships, love interests and marriages bound to happen naturally. No force can change the rule of nature. The pace of inter-caste or inter-religious or intra-locality marriage can be slowed down for sometime but never can be stopped. The so called slogan of ‘love-jihad’ or anything else will prove futile but surely take away some precious lives. The long queues of boys and girls in the district courts and High Courts for protection and marriage is the vivid example of the changing ground situations and more youngster are involving in the inter-faith and inter-caste relationships. Is this new blowing of the wind in the society not worth consideration for the society as a whole, social and political organizations to think and churn and erase the obsolete ideas and ideals from the society for the emotional bonding of their young generation by virtue of their choice?

 

Sanatan Dharma vs India today

    A new debate has been perpetuated on the statement of Udaynidhi Stalin, a minister of Youth affairs and Sports Development in Tamil Nadu Government who happens to be son of M.K. Stalin, Chief Minister of that state. Addressing a conference in Chennai, he equated the Sanatan Dharma with dengu, malaria, fever and corona and further stated not merely to oppose it but eradicate it. His statement was endorsed by A. Raja, an another leader of DMK and Priyank Khadge who is son of Congress President Mallikarjun Khadge. His so called statement was grabbed by the BJP as if boon. The party picked the issue to malign the image not only of DMK but majority parties of newly constituted INDIA alliance branding them as anti-Hindu and against the basic concept of Indianess. It is deliberate conscious effort of the BJP to subvert the gains of opposition and setting a narrative for the forthcoming parliamentary election. The battery of national level spokespersons has been entrusted with the diatribe against the DMK and against the other opposition parties in proxy. Prime Minister Narender Modi pressed himself in this imbroglio sensing the gravity of the issue and asked his party and ministers to aggressively raise this issue with the public.

    Sanatan Dharma is a Sanskrit term that can be loosely translated as eternal religion. Over the time it is used as the synonyms to Hinduism in 19th century.  The word Sanatan appears in Bhagvad Gita in reference to knowledge of the soul which is eternal. The five basic participles of Sanatan Dhrama are Karma, Dharma, Moksha, Yoga and Ahimsa. Dharma generally refer to a structured religion or religious duties as in Islam, Christianity, Budhism which are monotheistic religions. The term Dharma in Hinduism refers to nature such as dharma of fire to burn, river to flow, air to blow. Abstractly, dharma is unchangeable nature of human beings irrespective of any religious affiliation. The term Hindu was coined by Persians for the people living beyond river Sindhu. Later on Greeks invaders referred the people of trans Sindhu or Indus rives as Indu and that slang into Indians over the time.

Thousands of years before the term Hindu came into existence, the term Sanatan Dharma finds reference in Vedas. The duties have been broadly classified into Sanatan Dharma( spiritual in nature and can not change from person to person) and Varnasharma Dharma (duties performed according to the system of four varnas i.e. social division and four stages of life). The latter part is the source of inherent contradictions, exploitation, ownership of resources, segmentation of the society in rigid social hierarchy, subjugation and evolution of caste system in Hindu Dharma. This bred into gross inequality, repression, exploitation of all kinds and shun the minimum rights of a human. The well chanted phrase of Goswami Tulsidas in Ram Charit Manas “dhol, gawar, pashu, shudra, nari. Sakal tadan ke adhikari (Drums, the illiterate, lower castes, animals and women deserve to be beaten to straighten). The great Tulsidas might have propounded this equation on the bases of conditions of that time but it denotes clearly that society particularly Hindu society was badly infested with inequality and repression.

Gandhi has campaigned against and commented on the caste system vigorously during the freedom struggle but he recognized it as an integral part of the society and preached the harmony amongst the castes. He wrote in Young India “From the economic point of view, its value was once very great. It ensured hereditary skills; it limited competition. It is best remedy against the pauperism and it had all the advantage of trade guide. Although it didn’t foster adventure or invention there, it is not known to have come in the way either. Historically speaking, caste may be regarded as man’s experiment or social adjustment in the laboratory of Indian society. If we can prove it to be success, it can be offered to the world as a heaven and as the best remedy against heartless competition and social disintegration born of avarice and greed.”

The view of Ambedkar on religion and the caste system were more vociferous as he had encountered the vagaries of caste and religion existing during his period. He said “ Religion must mainly be a matter of principles only. It cannot be a matter of rules. The moment it degenerates in rules, it ceases to be a religion, as it kills responsibility which is an essence of true religious act.” Ambedkar castigated the caste system prevalent in India and noted that “Caste is not a physical object like a wall of bricks or a line of barbed wire which prevents the Hindus from co-mingling and which has, therefore, to be pulled down. Caste is a notion; it is a state of mind.” Ambedkar commented on caste system in his famous book ‘Annihilation of caste’ saying that “ Caste is another name for control. Caste puts a limit a limit on the enjoyment. Caste does not allow a person to transgress caste limits in pursuit of his enjoyment. That is the meaning of such caste restrictions as inter-dining and inter-marriage.” He further extend his argument by saying “ Religion, social status, and property are all source of power and authority which one man has, to control the liberty of another.”   

Bhagat Singh criticized the Brahmanical theory of karma in one of his article ‘Problems of the untouchability’, which postulates that people are assigned caste or varna according to the merit of their last birth. He emphatically castigate this thought and practice in his famous book ‘Why I am an ashiest” where he says “well, you Hindus, you say all the present sufferers are belong to the class of siiners of the births. Good. You say the present oppressors' were saintly people in their previous births, hence they enjoy the power. Let me admit that your ancestors were very shrewd people; they tried to find out theories strong enough to hammer down all the efforts of reason and disbelief.” in the same book he criticizes the “varna system” and says that these rules and laws related with the varna system are the inventions of the privileged ones’ to justify their usurped power, riches and superiority.

Dravidian are influenced by iconoclastic and atheistic concept. They dissociate themselves from religious affiliations. They consider Hinduism as a Brahmanical and Sanskritic and proponent of irrationalism and foolish beliefs. E.V. Ramaswamy who is revered as Periyar and father of Dravidian movement who spearheaded the movement against caste and gender inequality. Periyar movement has been the guiding spirit of Dravidian movement which was an anti-caste movement and largely against the religion. Pariyar was critical to Ramayan as it upholds the caste principles. The movement and ideology of atheistic streak of Periyar was furthered by C.N. Annadurai and M.K.Karunanidhi.   

RSS is the chief patron and proponent of Hindutva philosophy which was initited by V.D.Savarkar. The mission of RSS is “The Hindu culture is the life-breath of Hindusthan. It is therefore, clear that if Hidusthan is to be protected, we should first nourish the Hindu culture. If Hindu culture perishes in Hindusthan itself, and if the Hindu society ceases to exist, it will hardly be appropriate to refer to the mere geographical entity that remains as Hindusthan. Mere geographical lumps do not make a nation. The entire society should be in such a vigilant and organized condition that no one would dare to cast an evil eye on any of our points of honour.”

It clearly establishes that there is unavoidable and inherent contradictions between those who propound the idea of Sanatan Dharma and the majority section of the Indian society which have been victim of this regressive, exploitative and traditional approach over centuries whether they are rational thinking people or Ambedkarites or followers of the great Dravidian movement or communists. The philosophy of the ancient Sanatan Dharma potentially would negate the advancement of the society through continuously and unabated struggles by the significant sections of the society. Adherence with the idea of perseverance of Sanatan Dharma would necessitate the acceptance of all maladies emanated from this whether it is caste system or gender inequality or basic principles of the Indian Constitution; chiefly sovereignty, fundamental Rights, directive principles of state policy, socialism, secularism, judicial independence, federalism etc. Ours is a democratic country with huge and varied diversity plurality  is the reality of India. An idea of certain thought like perpetuation of Sanatan Dharama will do more harm than good. It may suit some political parties or social organizations to advance their vested interests and might be a tool to grab the power but India is a vast and diverse  nation encompasses of different many religions, tribes, social groups of big and small size and all these have their own way of leading life with distinct thought and practices. The statement of Udaynidhi, a scion of Krunanidhi who inherited the ideology of opposition of the Hinduism from E. V. Ramaswamy, C.N. Annadurai and M.K. Karunanidhi, that compared the   Hinduism with dengu, malaria, fever and corona is not good in taste due to his selection of words and should have been avoided this slang but on the same time the statement of his, strongly underline the deliberate tendency to mitigate the progress and achievement made by the Indian societies through persistent struggles against the hegemony of the exploitative forces who had the power and resources and ruled over the masses for centauries and; these forces treated them worse than an animal. The diatribe of rightists  is indicative of this notion that these forces represented the  Sanatan Dharma in the society. The statement should have been taken in the broader perspective of the social development. The position taken by the BJP on this issue justifies the cliam of those who say the ideology of Sangh Parivar is against the scheduled castes, backward  castes, farmers and religious minorities. Let’s see how the far right thinking RSS conglomeration takes this new debate to counter the nascent formed opposition alliance of INDIA? It is to be seen how this debate strengthens the Hindutva ideology and give rich dividends in the coming parliamentary elections?

  

Freedom of press, a myth or reality?

    A shocking news appeared in the newspapers today on 5 September, 2023, a day which is celebrated as Teachers’ Day in India and that news was regarding registration of an FIR against four leading editors and journalists of Editors Guid of India (EGI) namely Seema Mustafa, Seema Guha, Bharat Bhushan and Sanjay Kapoor. Their fault is that they visited the ethnic violence infested state Manipur between August 7 and 10 to study the media reportage on the violence in the hill state. On their visit, they found that ground reality of the carnage affected areas and people is not reported unbiasedly and impartially. The true picture of the violence, the state inflicted with more than four months was deliberately distorted and only one sided reporting was done by some of the media outlets. All the four editors have been charged with trying to provoke violence in the state.

    The whole world is in knowledge that worst of its kind violence between Meiteis, Kukis and Nagas tribes has been perpetuated. This violence has claimed lives of around 130 people, another more than 400 people wounded and approximately 60000 people were forced to leave their houses. The issue of strife and contention which centres around to tribal status to Meiteis of which Kukies are opposed of. Manipur’s proximity to international borders with Myanmar has made it prone to insurgency and conflict. Instances of ethnic violence are often attributed to decades of unresolved strife between various tribal and non-tribal groups. This ongoing violence was triggered by the Manipur High Court’s decision in April 2023 to include the state’s majority Meitei community in the list of Scheduled Tribes. This strife has led to churches being burned, sexual violence, killings and other atrocities. In late July, a harrowing video emerged of two Kuki women being paraded naked through the streets of a small Manipur village by a group of men. One of the women was then allegedly gang-raped. On this issue, opposition members of parliament have brought a no-confidence motion against Prime Minister Narendra Modi, citing his government’s failure to respond to the violence.There might be existing several other issues and all these issues are primarily political in nature and could be solved and resolved only through the political and social intervention of the state and central government. Unfortunately that’s not happening. 

   As expected from the press, EGI has decided to study the ground realities of the state which is plagued with the ethnic violence from the prospective of reportage in media. On visiting, they found certain glaring facts regarding manipulation of the actual ground situation by some of the media outlets. The fact finding team concluded that during the ethnic violence, journalists of Manipur wrote one sided reports, the Internet ban made matters worse, a common narrative was set by the Meitei media collectively through consultation with each other, since the internet was suspend, communication and transport was in disarray, Meitei media become a party to the vilification of security forces, state leadership become partisan during the conflict, arrangement should have been made for the distribution of credible news etc. 

    There might be reasons for disagreement with the report of EGI. But it is highly shocking to scuttle the freedom of press and independent voice by Manipur Government. Editors Guild of India is working for the protection of the press freedom and raising the standards of editorial leadership of newspapers and magazines since more than 40 years. Renowned and leading editors across India of wide spectrum of newspapers and magazines are associated with it. It is expected from the fourth pillar of Indian democracy that independent, fair and impartial information reaches to the masses. For the last 4 months, Manipur is burning in ethnic violence and it is the prime responsibility of the government to contain the violence and restore the peace in this hill state. Instead of that, government has chosen to curtail the wings of editors and journalists who are supposed to bring forth the real happenings and situations in any part of the nation or of any incident, bigger or small. Most people agree that news organizations and journalists should reflect all sides of an issue and not push a particular agenda. A candid, just and fair, objective and unbiased news and information is the right of every citizen and at the same time responsibility of media and government to provide authentic, reliable and impartial information to the masses. The action of Manipur government is thoroughly undemocratic, against the freedom of press and a blatant tendency to curb the reliable and independent information. Filing an FIR against the editors of EGI is refreshing the days of emergency. There is always a room for disagreement as each one sees the situation through his or her own perspective and thought process. The happenings in the last few years strikingly point towards the intolerance, justifying the wrongs as good, scuttle the voice of dissent mercilessly and harrowing the opponents by this government.  Numerous socio-political activists, thinkers, journalists and students’ leaders have  been put behind the bars on the allegations of indulgence in anti-national activities and they are languishing in the dingy rooms of prisons. Some of the prominent activists who are of old age couldn’t sustain this onslaught and inhuman treatment and died. Now the independent press is the new target and this action of the government indicates towards that. The action of Manipur government is vehemently condemnable and needs to be reverted back immediately. In the present scenario, the moot question is whether this nation is heading towards the anarchy where no voice matters except the king?

Throttle of the voice for legal rights of citizens

   The Supreme Court of India has scheduled the proceedings to hear the diverse arguments of different petitions challenging the abrogation of Article 370 of the constitution by the central government through an executive order issued by president of India on 5 August 2019 through the constitution (Application to Jammu & Kashmir) Order, 2019 (CO272).  Different petitioners have filed around 23 petitions against the decision of central government to abrogate the Article 370. Supreme Court has started hearing the arguments from 2 August and arguments will be heard for total 60 hours Time has been allotted amongst the advocates representing different petitioners.  Reputed senior advocates namely Gopal Subramaniam, Kapil Sibal, Shekar Napthade, Zafar Shah, PC Sen, Dushyant Dave, CU Singh, Dinesh Dwivedi and  Rajeev Dhavan have been listed to argue the case. Besides these, other senior advocates Sanjay Parekh, Menaka Guruswamy, Nitya Ramkrishnan, PV Surendernath, Manish Tiwari and Irfan Hafiz Lone have participated in oral arguments. Zahoor Ahmad Butt, an Advocate and political science teacher Jawahar Nagar, Srinagar also got six minutes for appearance and argument before the Supreme Court on 23 August for  de-operationalisation of Article 370 who himself is a petitioner in one of the 23  petitions.  

     Bhat might have thought he was only exercising his legal right to present his case before the court but government has planned some other reward for him  for this act of his. JK Directorate of School Education has suspended him from his lectureship terming his  action of appearing and arguing for his own petition before the 5 judge constitutional bench headed by Justice DY Chandrachud as a delinquent officer by an order dated 25 August. Bhat’s suspension had been highlighted before the Constitution bench by senior lawyer Kapil Sibal. He pointed out that the teacher had taken leave from work for two days to appear in the court in support of the batch of petitions challenging the nullification of articles 370 and 35A that took away J&K’s special status. Suspension of Zahoor Ahmad was revoked on 2 September on the intervention of Supreme Court. The act of the JK government was clearly a vilification of legal right of a person who argued for his own petition which was allowed by the apex court. The dictatorial and hegemonic government under the Lieutenant General could not tolerate this courage of a school teacher.  Although the whole gloomy episode is a clear violation of the broader framework of ‘right to freedom of speech and expression’ enshrined under Article 19 (1) a of the constitution and legal right of a citizen who is a petitioner in the present case. The action of government is clearly vindictive and for suppressing the intent of opposing a government action by the citizens. On the one hand it is preached that India is mother of democracy, constitution is supreme, people enjoy legal rights etc. On the other hand it exposes the true character of the present day government which is hell bent upon to throttle and muzzle every voice which is raised against any government action. Zahoor Ahmad is an ordinary Indian and ekes out his and his family’s living through a government job. But his fault is that he has a brain which thinks and; what his mind dictates he shown the courage to say that. But in today’s scheme of governing the state affairs, such actions are anti-national. 17 leading and senior advocates of the Supreme Court are arguing this particular case which will be vehemently defended by the Advocate General of India and Solicitor General of India on behalf of the government. Zahoor might’ve nothing special to put forward which these legal luminaries have not argued except his zeal, volition and intent to hear his inner voice. The 5 judge constitutional bench headed by CJI will decide this matter of national and international importance which is the best in wisdom, legal implications and understanding, constitutional scheme and national interest. 

    The suspension of Zahoor Ahmad is a dictate of the government and an emphatic message for common citizens as well as for all others what may the position they held either toe the thought process of the ruling establishment   or perish. Although this line of thought has already implemented in the cases of educationists, activists and free thinkers in false cases. Recently termination of membership of Lok Sabha of Rahul Gandhi on Modigate is indicative of this mindset. The tendency of the establishment to treat the citizens as herd is abominable. The matter should not be allowed mere on the reinstatement but who are responsible for taking such a malice decision should be brought to book who lowered the prestige of the administration and government. Let’s see how the concept of voice of dissent, fundamentals and legal rights, democracy and concept of just and equal society survives in India!