Meaningless Controversy on Sameer Wankhede’s Religion

For the last few weeks almost every day, we find one or the other charge is being traded between Maharashtra Minister Nawab Malik and an officer of the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) Samir Wankhede. Nawab Malik says that Wankhede’s name also contains the middle name of Dawood, which he has deliberately deleted. Nawab Malik is insistent on saying that Wankhede is a Muslim as his father had converted to Islam after marrying a Muslim woman. He says that even Sameer Wankhede‘s previous marriage was also with a Muslim woman, which ended in divorce, but later he married, Kranti Redkar, a Hindu woman. The allegation is that Sameer Wankhede has fraudulently obtained a certificate of the Hindu Scheduled Caste, to which his father originally belonged before converting to Islam, to get the job from the reserved quota. Thus, he is said to be guilty of grabbing the job by depriving it to a rightful backward candidate.

But can Nawab Malik pass a judgment that Wankhede is a Muslim, while he and his family is stoutly claiming to be a Hindu? Even if Wankhede was born to a Muslim father and a mother, he has got every right to shun their religion and follow the religion of his choice, which is Hinduism here. Is it not stretching a non-issue too far? If Nawab Malik had not been a Minister, would anybody even have noticed it? Moreover, if Wankhede had not arrested Malik's son-in-law, would he have opened the relentless campaign against Wankhede? An officer may not be lily-white, but the general perception is that a turncoat politician like Malik must have made money in the most hanky-panky manner, which emboldened him to contest elections in Maharashtra and become a Minister, that too, after getting uprooted from Uttar Pradesh. So, Malik cannot adopt the 'holier than thou attitude' towards Wankhede.

There is hardly any doubt that in India substantially large numbers of people have two dates of births. One is given in the certificate, which is decided either by teachers or by their parents and the other one is the real date of birth. I can say with certainty that in the sixties and early seventies most of the students had their dates of birth either 15th July or 1st of January because it was easier and convenient for the class teachers at the primary schools to maintain the records. Now also the dates of births are manipulated but only at the school levels. Even parents used to get recorded the different dates of birth, which normally used to be less than the real ones. The purpose was to get the dates of retirement delayed if their wards were in any job.

However, the controversy used to be set at rest on the basis of the dates that were given in the High School or in the School Leaving Certificates. It was nobody’s business to spark controversy at a later stage. Again, if somebody has fraudulently obtained the certificate of OBC/SC/ST, the issue can certainly be raised by a third party but to create controversy on anybody’s religion is mischief, pure and simple. It cannot be linked with any other misconducts like the misuse of power for extortion etc. Moreover, Wankhede is not trying to hide behind the cover of any religion to save himself from the allegations of extortions etc. Therefore, Nawab Malik would do well not to misuse his position as a Minister to throw mud on a person by questioning his religion, which he and his entire family is stubbornly denying.

Sudden and Enigmatic Withdrawal of Farm Laws

It is really an enigma shrouded in surprising mystery that why the prime minister has decided to suddenly withdraw three Farm Laws, that too, at a time when the farmers’ agitation has almost died down. It was practically gasping for breath for the last many months. There was no support coming for it from any corner. Some political parties were, albeit, extending only their lip service to the agitation. Even Supreme Court has come down very harshly on the agitators and has asked them to vacate the roads surrounding Delhi that they have forcibly kept in their control for the last some months.

The Prime Minister had said that those supporting the agitations were like ‘Andolanjeevis’. What is even more intriguing is that these Farm Laws were already kept on hold for two years, then why were they withdrawn suddenly? The Expert Committee appointed by theSupreme Court has also unambiguously spoken in favour of the Farm Laws. Moreover, there has been a continuous demand for reforms in the agriculture sector. Therefore, this U-turn of the government on the Farm Laws is beyond anyone's logic.

There is hardly any doubt that agriculture needs to be modernised. This admittedly cannot be done by small farmers, who are practically labourers, as they do not have the wherewithal to modernise agriculture. If the Farm Laws had been not withdrawn and implemented with all sincerity, would certainly have modernised agriculture. Presently, the need is to lessen the burden from agriculture, adopt new technology, increase the irrigational facilities, arrange the high yielding seeds, provide the remunerative prices and abolish the net of the middlemen. In fact, these were envisaged in the Farm Laws.

It was thought that the government, experts and the courts would convince the predominantly large number of small and marginal farmers of the benefits of the Farm Laws and implement them with all sincerity in due course.

But unfortunately, the government has buckled down under the pressure of the vocal lobby of rich farmers and politicized intellectuals. Throwing the towels before such persons particularly when, the government had spoken many times that Farm Laws would not be withdrawn, has poured icy waters on the hopes and the aspirations of the small farmers like us.

Like

Comment

Share

Make Hindi the Language of the Supreme Court and Other High Courts

One will have to admire the honesty of the Chief Justice of India for his confession of being a non-sophisticated speaker in the English language. In fact, what he has said about himself is truer about most of the lawyers and judges of the country. Only a minuscule minority having had the privilege of getting an education from the top schools can boast of fairly good command over the English language.  Regrettably, those lawyers who possess proficiency in the English language, get undue importance in the Supreme Court even by those judges, who have had their schoolings through their mother tongues.

Most of us have started learning English as one of the subjects when we were admitted to the sixth standard. Most of the students in village schools used to bid farewell to the English after somehow passing the eighth standard. In most Law Colleges the medium of instruction is either Hindi or regional languages. There is nothing wrong with it, rather it should be appreciated that our dependence on the English has vanished in state sooner than later.

For those who come to practice in the Supreme Court, their comprehension of the English language is no better, although they will demonstrate their vociferous opposition to the Hindi language for no genuine rhyme and reason. I have seen a High Court judge practising in the Supreme Court after his retirement and speaking like, ‘he did not went’ instead of ‘he did not go’. I can say with all the emphasis at my command that those coming from non-Hindi speaking areas can master Hindi with even one-fourth of the effort that they put into learning half-baked English.

In this regard, some constitutional changes are required to be made. Article 348 speaks of only English to be the language of the Supreme Court and the High Courts. However, 348(2) of the Constitution provides that (2) Notwithstanding anything in sub-clause (a) of clause (1), the Governor 1 *** of a State may, with the previous consent of the President, authorise the use of the Hindi language, or any other language used for any official purposes of the State, in proceedings in the High Court having its principal seat in that State: Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply to any judgment, decree or order passed or made by such High Court.

Taking advantage of this proviso in many of the states Hindi has been made the language of their High Courts. But for bringing about the desired change in the Supreme Court, it is the Parliament of India, which has to step in. Even otherwise also, English was to be used as the language of communication, as per Article 346, with the non-Hindi speaking state only for 15 years and that period was over long back.

This is the time that when a predominantly large number of Parliamentarians and judges are Hindi speakers, the Hindi should be given the pride of place in all spheres. During the last seventy-five years, Hindi has obtained acceptability, not only in the country but in many countries across the world. Prime Minister Modi, who is an enviable speaker in Hindi, can help make Hindi the official Lingua Franca of the country. His government has already given importance to Hindi and other languages for imparting education in the New Education Policy. We hope that the English would be replaced in the Supreme Court and other High Courts under Modi’s leadership. He will be remembered by the posterity for this revolutionary step as it will provide freshness to arguments, judgments and jurisprudence in the Supreme Court and the High Courts.

 

 

Absorbing and Compelling Biography of Savarkar

 

Parmanand Pandey

There are some path-breaking books that open the eyes of the readers. The two-volume biography of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar by Vikram Sampath is certainly one of them. The first volume titled ‘Savarkar: Echoes from a Forgotten Past’ covered his life from 1883 to 2023. It was published in 2019 and talks about his daring escape and capture from the ship S. S. Morea at Marseilles (France) and the long and harrowing incarceration in the Cellular Jail of Andaman, more known as Kaala Paani. The second part is the sequel of the first one, which is named’Savarkar: A Contested Legacy’ and covers his life from 1923 till his death in 1966. It deals with his activities of social reforms, political activities from the platform of Hindu Mahasabha, elucidation of the concept of the Hindutva, opposition to the idea of Gandhi’s non-violence and the two-nation theory of MA Jinnah. The book provides a vivid description of the red fort trial of Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination case.
Savarkar worked vigorously for the eradication of the caste system, particularly the abolition of untouchability, from the Hindu society. He advocated for the reconversion of Muslims and Christians to Hinduism, who had abandoned their religion because of force, fraud, and other inducements. He was deeply pained to see the farcical Hindu Muslim unity that was being trumpeted by Mahatma Gandhi by supporting the Khilafat movement. Instead, he told Muslim brethren that ‘you are Hindu by blood and race, and you are dearer to us than the Muslims of the world, but if you feel that you are dearer to the Islamic countries like Turkey than the ‘Hindu Kafirs’, then do understand that this delusion will end in your downfall.’ For him, in fact, ‘Hindu-Muslim unity was a mirage and ‘Hindutva’ is the only nationalist creed.’
Savarkar had talked about seven shackles of Hindu society. They were (1) denial of Vedic literature to one and all Hindus; (2) choice of profession by merit, not heredity; (3) untouchability; (4) barring crossing the seas fearing loss of caste;(5) denial of reconversions to Hinduism; (6) restrictions on inter-caste dining; and (7) inter-caste marriages. Thankfully, most of these shackles have either now got broken or diluted with the passage of time but the curse of casteism and non-entry of other religions to Hinduism is not only continuing but has become more entrenched. He sharply disagreed with Mahatma Gandhi, who was of the view that Islam was the religion of peace. Savarkar was candid and direct in asking him: what makes you think so patently wrong? He was of the view that Buddhism, Christianity and Hinduism, of course, teach peace but not Islam.
Savarkar was always ready to work with the Shuddhi movement of Arya Samaj and with its help in October 1926 he converted one Professor Pinto of Lucknow to Hindu fold. Professor Pinto was M A from Cambridge and was attracted to Hinduism after having studied comparative religion. There is an interesting incident that happened in January 1928, Tukoji Holkar, Maharaja of Indore, wanted to marry an American girl, Miss Miller but it was being opposed by orthodox Hindus. He was even ready to convert to Islam to marry the girl he was madly in love with. Savarkar supported him to marry his ladylove without converting to Islam. He got support from the Arya Samaj and even from the Shankaracharya. Maharaja was so happy with Savarkar and Shankaracharya that he gave a generous grant of Rs Two lakhs for undertaking Shuddhi work.
The amount of work that has been done by the author in writing the biography is really mind-boggling. One is amazed by the industry, inclination and commitment to the cause of presenting the authentic life history of Savarkar. There is no trace of hagiography, which is usually found in the biographies. The readers have been left to arrive at their own conclusions on the basis of the copious facts. Savarkar analysed the problems of Muslims that ‘their theology and politics divide the human world into two groups only- The Muslim land and the enemy land. All lands which are either entirely inhabited by the Muslims or ruled over by Muslims are Muslim lands. All lands, which are mostly inhabited by non-Muslim power are enemy lands and no faithful Muslim is allowed to bear any loyalty to them and is called upon to do everything in his power by policy or force or fraud to convert the non-Muslim there to the Muslim faith, to bring about its political conquest by a Muslim power. Consequently, traditional patriotism is a word unknown to the Muslim-nay is, taboo, unless in connection with a Muslim territory…………… They could not be accused from their point of view of being traitors to Hindustan. Their conscience was clear. They never looked upon today’s Hindustan as their country. It is to them already an alien land, and enemy land- ‘a Dar ul Harb’ and not a Dar-ul- Islam’.

Savarkar shared the views of Dr BR Ambedkar, who while quoting Theodore Morrison speech delivered in Paris in 1899, had said, ‘The views held by the Mohammedans are alone sufficient to prevent the establishment of an independent Indian Government. Were the Afghan, to descend from the North upon an autonomous India, the Mohamedans, instead of uniting with Sikhs and the Hindus to repel him, would be drawn by all the ties of Kinship and religion to join his flag.’ Dr Ambedkar further said that ‘Hinduism is said to divide people and is in contrast Islam is said to bind people together. This is only a half-truth. For Islam divides as inexorably as it binds. Islam is a close corporation and the distinction that it makes between, and non-Muslims is a very real, very positive and very alienating distinction. The brotherhood of Islam is not the universal brotherhood of man. It is the brotherhood of Muslims for Muslims only. To the Muslims ‘ibi bene ibi patria (where there is bread, there is my country) is unthinkable. Where there is the rule of Islam, there is his own country. In other words, Islam can never allow a true Muslim to adopt India as his motherland and regard a Hindu as his kith and kin. That is probably the reason that why Maulana Mohammed Ali, a great Indian but true Muslim, preferred to be buried in Jerusalem rather than in India.’

A life full of miseries

Savarkar’s life was full of miseries from his young days to the last breath of his life. It is difficult to fathom the pains that he endured in his lifetime but never deviated from his chosen path. The famous Amrit Bazar Patrika wrote about
him saying ‘whether one agrees with all his views or not, Mr Savarkar compels attention by his boldness and clarity of his utterances. He knows no doubt or hesitation. His logic is merciless, his humour caustic, and his irony effective. He is a man with a mission.’
Savarkar had never made any bones of his disliking for the policies, principles, and programmes of Mahatma Gandhi. Non-violence for him was not only sinful but immoral as well. He used to say that the doctrine of no-violence numbed the revolutionary fervour, softened the limbs and hearts of Hindus, and stiffened the bones of enemies. The lambs resolved to lead vegetarian life, but wolves were not connected with their pious resolution. It may sound strange, but it is a fact that Savarkar was an ardent supporter of Cow protection but was against Cow worship. This was the reason that his name was even being linked with the murder of Mahatma Gandhi although he was exonerated of all charges in the Red Fort trial. Nonetheless, his adversaries always try to paint him as the guilty man of Mahatma Gandhi’s murder. He himself had claimed that he was neither a fanatic Hindu nor a communalist but ‘I cannot make donkeys think like horses.’ He was a staunch supporter of Hindi in Devanagari script for making it the national language.
In the twilight of his life, he was almost immovable and had abandoned taking anything before proceeding for his last journey. He remained engulfed with controversies during his lifetime as well as after his death. Glowing tributes were paid to him after his death by the political leaders of all hues.
The book is a commendable effort to make the objective assessment of Veer Savarkar and deserves to be read by all those interested in the history of the freedom struggle. It is written in a racy style and good English and keeps the readers absorbed from beginning to the end.