પહેલો મલાલા એવોર્ડ મેળવનારી બે ભારતીય યુવતી અિશ્વની અને રઝિયાને તમે ઓળખો છો?

મલાલા, નામ પડતાં જ એક માસૂમ ચહેરો આંખ આગળ છવાઈ જાય છે. બાળાઓના શિક્ષણ માટે તાલિબાનો સામે બાથ ભીડનારી આ પાકિસ્તાની દીકરી રાતોરાત સમગ્ર વિશ્વની લાડલી બની ગઈ છે. તાલિબાનોની ગોળીથી ઘાયલ થયેલી મલાલા હવે એકદમ સ્વસ્થ છે અને ફરી પોતાની પ્રિય પ્રવૃત્તિ – અભ્યાસમાં લાગી ગઈ છે. મલાલા હવે એક વૈશ્વિક હસ્તી બની ગઈ છે. વિશ્વભરમાં બાળકીઓના શિક્ષણનું પ્રતીક અને પ્રેરણાસ્રોત બની ગઈ છે. સંયુક્ત રાષ્ટ્ર દ્વારા તો મલાલાના જન્મ દિવસને 'મલાલા દિન' તરીકે ઊજવવાનો નવો સિરસ્તો શરૂ થયો છે. ગત ૧૨ જુલાઈના રોજ ન્યૂ યોર્કમાં આવેલા સંયુક્ત રાષ્ટ્રના મુખ્યાલય ખાતે મલાલાના ૧૬મા જન્મ દિવસની અને પહેલા મલાલા દિનની ઉજવણી કરવામાં આવી. મલાલા દિનની ઉજવણી નિમિત્તે શિક્ષણના માટે યુવા સાહસિક એવોર્ડ, જેને મલાલા એવોર્ડ તરીકે પણ ઓળખવામાં આવે છે, તે પણ એનાયત થયો. મલાલા એવોર્ડ એવી સાત બાળાઓને એનાયત કરાયો, જેણે બાળાઓના શિક્ષણ માટે સંઘર્ષ કરેલો છે ને કરી રહી છે. આમ, ૧૨મી જુલાઈએ એક મલાલાની સામે બીજી સાત 'મલાલા' પેદા થયેલી જોવા મળી!

આપણા દેશ માટે ગૌરવની વાત એ છે કે મલાલા એવોર્ડ મેળવનારી સાત યુવતીઓમાંથી બે તો ભારતીય છે; એક છે, કર્ણાટકની ૨૪ વર્ષીય અિશ્વની આંગડી અને બીજી છે, ઉત્તર પ્રદેશના મેરઠ જિલ્લાની માત્ર ૧૫ વર્ષની રઝિયા સુલતાન. આ બન્ને યુવતીઓનો શિક્ષણ મેળવવા અને અન્ય બાળાઓને શિક્ષણ અપાવવા માટેનો સંઘર્ષ તો મલાલા કરતાં જૂનો છે, પણ મલાલા એવોર્ડ નિમિત્તે આખા દેશમાં તેમનું નામ જાણીતું થયું છે. આપણે તેમનાં કામથી પણ પરિચિત થવું રહ્યું.

કર્ણાટકના નાનકડા શેષાદ્રીપુરમ્ ગામમાં ગરીબ પરિવારમાં જન્મેલી અિશ્વની જન્મથી જ આંખે જોઈ શકતી નહોતી. પરિવાર માટે બોજ સમાન આ બાળાએ પોતે ભણવા માટે પણ ઘરના લોકો સાથે સંઘર્ષ કરવો પડયો અને પછી શાળામાં શિક્ષકો દ્વારા રખાતા ભેદભાવ સામે લડત આપવી પડી. ધોરણ દસ સુધી તો તેણે પ્રજ્ઞાચક્ષુઓ માટેની વિશેષ શાળામાં અભ્યાસ કર્યો, પરંતુ પછી તે સામાન્ય શાળામાં જ દાખલ થઈ. ભણવામાં ખંતને પ્રતાપે તેણે ધોરણ-૧૨ અને કોલેજમાં સમગ્ર વર્ગખંડમાં સારા ગુણો સાથે ટોચનો ક્રમાંક મેળવ્યો હતો. હાલ તો તે એક આઈટી કંપનીમાં નોકરી કરે છે, પણ નોકરીમાં ઠરીઠામ થવાને બદલે તેણે પોતાના જેવાં વિકલાંગ બાળકોના શિક્ષણ માટે સંઘર્ષ આદર્યો છે. બેંગલુરુમાં કાર્યરત લિયોનાર્ડ ચેસાયર ડિસેબિલિટી નામની એનજીઓ સાથે સંકળાઈને વિકલાંગ બાળકોના શિક્ષણના અધિકાર માટે ઝુંબેશ ચલાવી રહી છે. અિશ્વનીને દર મહિને એક હજાર રૂપિયા વિકલાંગ સહાય સ્વરૂપે મળે છે, જેને તે પોતાના જેવાં વિકલાંગ બાળકોના અભ્યાસ માટે ખર્ચી નાખે છે. અિશ્વની પોતાના જેવાં બાળકોના શિક્ષણ માટે પોતાની આખી જિંદગી કુરબાન કરી દેવા પ્રતિબદ્ધ છે.

મલાલા એવોર્ડ મેળવનાર બીજી તરુણી છે રઝિયા સુલતાન. મેરઠ જિલ્લાના નાંગ્લાખુંબા ગામની આ દીકરીને નામ તો સામ્રાજ્ઞીનું મળ્યું છે, પણ નસીબમાં બાળમજૂરી લખી હતી. જો કે, નસીબ સામે ઝૂકી જાય તે રઝિયા શાની! માત્ર ચાર વર્ષની વયથી પોતાના ગામની અન્ય બાળાઓની સાથે તે ફૂટબોલ સીવવાની મજૂરી કરવા લાગી હતી. જો કે, એક એનજીઓના પ્રતાપે તેને બાળમજૂરીમાંથી છૂટીને ભણવાની તક મળી. પોતે શિક્ષણ પ્રાપ્ત કર્યા પછી તેને શિક્ષણનું ખરું મહત્ત્વ સમજાયું અને તેણે પોતાના જેવા બાળમજૂરોને કામેથી છોડાવીને શાળામાં ભણવા બેસાડવાનો યજ્ઞા આદર્યો. રઝિયા ૧૧ ધોરણ સુધી ભણી છે, પણ શિક્ષણ પ્રત્યેની લગનીને કારણે પોતાના જેવી ૪૮ બાળકીઓને બાળમજૂરીમાંથી છોડાવીને શાળાએ ભણતી કરી છે. હાલ તે પોતાના વિસ્તારમાં તેમ જ અન્ય રાજ્યોમાં પણ જઈને ઘરે ઘરે ફરીને પોતાનાં બાળકોને મજૂરીએ નહીં મોકલવા, પણ ભણવા બેસાડવા માટે સમજાવી રહી છે.

એવોર્ડ મેળવનાર અન્ય પાંચ વિદેશી તરુણીઓમાં એક પાકિસ્તાનની ૧૫ વર્ષીય બાળા સાઝિયા છે, જે મલાલાની બહેનપણી છે. બીજી મોરક્કોની માત્ર ૧૨ વર્ષની રાઓઇઆ છે, જેણે પોતાને ભણવાનું છોડીને લગ્ન કરવા માટે છોકરાઓ જોવાની સલાહ આપનાર શિક્ષણ મંત્રીને 'માઇન્ડ યોર બિઝનેસ' કહી દેવાની હિંમત દાખવી હતી. ત્રીજી બાંગ્લાદેશની ૧૮ વર્ષીય કેશોબ છે, જેણે બાળલગ્ન સામે સંઘર્ષ આદર્યો છે. ચોથી સિએરા લિયોનની ૨૦ વર્ષીય યુવતી અમિનતા છે, જે દેશની ડામાડોળ સ્થિતિમાં પણ બાળકોના શિક્ષણ માટે સતત ઝુંબેશ ચલાવી રહી છે. પાંચમું નામ નેપાળની ૨૨ વર્ષીય ઊર્મિલા છે, જેની સ્ટોરી સૌથી સાહસિક છે. માત્ર છ વર્ષની વયે માતા-પિતા દ્વારા ઘર-નોકરાણી (કમલારી) તરીકે વેચી દેવાયેલી ઊર્મિલા બાર બાર વર્ષ સુધી નોકરડી તરીકે સબડયા પછી તેણે 'કમલારી ગર્લ્સ ફોરમ'ની સ્થાપના કરી તેની સામે અવાજ ઉઠાવ્યો છે. મલાલા જેવી દીવા સમી દીકરીઓ છે ત્યાં સુધી અંધારું છવાવાનું નથી!

(સૌજન્ય : સમય-સંકેત, સંસ્કાર પૂર્તિ, “સંદેશ” Jul 20, 2013,)  

e.mail : divyeshvyas.amd@gmail.com


Those who care for the future of the religion should valorise the work of reformers who rid an ancient, ossified faith of its divisions, prejudices, and closed-mindedness

A bhadralok friend of mine is of the view that the Government of India should celebrate every December 16 as Vijay Diwas, Victory Day, to mark the surrender in 1971 of the Pakistani forces in Dhaka to the advancing Indian Army. My friend argues that such a celebration would take Indians in general, and Hindus in particular, out of the pacifist, defeatist mindset that he claims has so crippled them. The triumph in Dhaka represents for him the finest moment in a millenia otherwise characterised by Indian (and more specifically Hindu) humiliation at the hands of foreigners.

I was reminded of my friend’s fond fantasy when reading about the posters in Mumbai recently put up by members of the Bharatiya Janata Party. These carry portraits of a prominent BJP leader, with two accompanying slogans: ‘I AM A HINDU NATIONALIST,’ in English, and ‘Garv sé Kaho Ham Hindu Hain’, in Hindi. The latter slogan needs perhaps to be translated for south Indian readers, and set in context for younger ones. ‘Proudly Proclaim Our Hindu-Ness’, would be a faithful rendition. The slogan originates in the Ram Janmabhoomi campaign of the 1980s and 1990s, when it was used by the VHP, RSS, BJP, and Bajrang Dal cadres to mobilise men and materials in the drive to demolish a 16th century mosque in Ayodhya believed by many to be sited on the birthplace of the (mythical) God Ram.

Victory in Dhaka

Should Hindus be proud of the Indian Army’s victory in Dhaka in 1971? Perhaps as Indians, but not specifically as Hindus. The war had its basis in the savage repression of Bengalis in East Pakistan by the West Pakistan Army. The refugees who came to India were both Hindus and Muslims. The help rendered to them by the Government of India did not discriminate according to their faith. As for the Indian military campaign, the chief commander in the field was a Jew, his immediate superior a Sikh. A Parsi served as Chief of Army Staff. His own superior, the Prime Minister of India, had notoriously been disallowed from entering the Jagannath temple in Puri because she had not married a Hindu.

To be sure, many soldiers and officers in the Indian Army were of Hindu origin. Yet they never saw themselves in narrowly communal terms. In our armed forces, then and now, Hindu and Muslim, Christian and Sikh, Parsi and Jew, lived, laboured and struggled together.

Hindu in intent and content

Unlike the military campaign in East Pakistan in 1971, the campaign to build a temple in Ayodha was unquestionably Hindu in intent and content. No Muslims or Sikhs or Parsis or Jews or Christians participated in it. But should Hindus have been proud of it? I rather think not. In a society where so many are without access to adequate education, health care and housing, where malnutrition is rife and where safety and environmental standards are violated every minute, to invest so much political energy and human capital in the demolition of a mosque and its replacement with a brand-new temple seemed wildly foolish, if not downright Machiavellian. As it turned out, the Ram Janmabhoomi campaign led to two decades of strife across northern and western India, with thousands of people losing their lives and hundreds of thousands their homes and livelihoods.

The war of 1971 was not a Hindu war, and the destruction of the Babri Masjid was not something that could fill Hindus with pride. What then, should Hindus be proud of? The answer is that rather than seek for one defining moment, one heroic triumph, Hindus who care for the fate and future of Hinduism should instead valorise the quiet, persistent work of reformers down the centuries to rid an ancient, ossified faith of its divisions, its prejudices, and its closed-mindedness.

The story of Hindu pride that I wish to tell also begins with Bengal, not with the surrender of the Pakistani Army in 1971, but with the work in the early 19th century of Rammohun Roy, who was unarguably the first great Indian modernist. Rammohun campaigned for the abolition of sati, for greater rights for women more generally, for the embrace of modern scientific education and for a liberal spirit of free enquiry and intellectual debate. His example was carried forward by other Bengali reformers, among them Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar and Swami Vivekananda, who focussed on, among other things, education for women and the abolition of caste distinctions.

Epicentre of radical thinking

The torch first lit in Bengal was taken over, and made even brighter, in Maharashtra, which in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was the epicentre of reformist and radical thinking in India. The pernicious practice of ‘untouchability’ was attacked from below by Jotirau Phule and from above by Gopal Krishna Gokhale. Maharashtra also gave birth to India’s first home-grown feminists, such as Tarabai Shinde and Pandita Ramabai, who wrote searing tracts against patriarchal practices and motivated young girls to emancipate themselves through modern education.

In 1915, Mohandas K. Gandhi came back to India after two decades in the diaspora. Living in South Africa, he had been seized of the need to build harmonious, mutually beneficial, relations between Hindus and Muslims. This commitment to religious pluralism he now renewed and reaffirmed. Meanwhile, he progressively became more critical of caste discrimination. To begin with, he attacked ‘untouchability’ while upholding the ancient ideal of varnashramadharma. Then he began advocating inter-mixing and inter-dining, and eventually, inter-marriage itself.

Gandhi was pushed to take more radical positions by B.R. Ambedkar, the outstanding lawyer-scholar who was of ‘Untouchable’ origins himself. A modernist and rationalist, Dr. Ambedkar believed that for Dalits to escape from oppression, they had to not look for favours from guilt-ridden reformers but themselves ‘educate, agitate and organise’ their way to emancipation. He remains an inspirational figure, whose work and legacy remain relevant for Dalit and Suvarna alike.

When India became independent in 1947, a central question the new nation faced was the relation of faith to state. There was a strong movement to create India as a ‘Hindu Rashtra’, a mirror-image of the Islamic nation that was Pakistan. The person who stood most firmly against this idea was the first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. In a letter written to Chief Ministers on October 15, 1947, he reminded them that “we have a Muslim minority who are so large in numbers that they cannot, even if they want to, go anywhere else. They have got to live in India. This is a basic fact about which there can be no argument. Whatever the provocation from Pakistan and whatever the indignities and horrors inflicted on non-Muslims there, we have got to deal with this minority in a civilised manner. We must give them security and the rights of citizens in a democratic State.”

Gandhi was a heterodox Hindu, who was detested by the priestly orthodoxy; so much so that the Sankaracharyas once even organised a signature campaign that asked the British to declare Gandhi a non-Hindu. Nehru was a lapsed Hindu, who never entered a temple in adult life. He too was intensely disliked by the sants and shakha heads who arrogate to themselves the right to speak for Hindus. Ambedkar was a renegade Hindu, who was born into the faith yet decided in the end to leave it, through a dramatic conversion ceremony weeks before his death.

For all their lapses and departures from orthodoxy — or perhaps because of them — Gandhi, Ambedkar, and Nehru were the three 20th century figures who did most to rid Hinduism of its ills and excesses, who worked most heroically to nurture the spirit of equal citizenship that the Laws of Manu so explicitly deny. The work that they, and the equally remarkable reformers who preceded them, did, are what Hindus should be most proud of.

Entrenched prejudices

That said, Hindus still have much to be ashamed about. As the recent spate of attacks on Dalits and women shows, deep-rooted caste and patriarchal prejudices remain entrenched in many parts of India. Meanwhile, in countries that neighbour ours, Islamic fundamentalism is on the rise, giving ammunition to parties in India who represent the most sectarian and exclusive aspects of Hinduism themselves. The battles inaugurated by the likes of Rammohun Roy and Jotirau Phule, and carried forward by Ambedkar and Nehru and company, have now to be fought afresh. The abolition of caste prejudices; the elimination of gender hierarchies; the promotion of religious pluralism — these remain the elusive ideals of those who wish (proudly or otherwise) to call themselves Hindu and Indian.

(Ramachandra Guha’s books include Makers of Modern India.

courtesy : “The Hindu”, 23 July 2013

The debate around Hindu Nationalism and Indian Nationalism is not a new one. During colonial period, when the rising freedom movement was articulating the concept and values of Indian nationalism, the section of Hindus, keeping aloof from freedom movement asserted the concept of Hindu Nationalism. The debate has resurfaced again due to the one who is trying to project himself as the Prime-Ministerial candidate of BJP-NDA, Narendra Modi. In an interview recently (July 2013) said very ‘simply’ that he was born a Hindu, he is a nationalist, so he is a Hindu Nationalist! His Party President Rajnath Singh also buttressed the point and took it further to say that Muslims are Muslim nationalists, Christians are Christian Nationalists. So one has a variety of nationalisms to choose from!

Modi’s putting 2+2 together and claiming to be a Nationalist and a Hindu and so a Hindu nationalist is like putting the wool in others eyes. Hindu nationalism is a politics and a category with a specific meaning and agenda. This is the part of the ideology and practice of Modi’s parent organizations, BJP-RSS. During colonial period the rising classes of industrialists, businessmen, workers and educated classes came together and formed different organizations, Madras Mahajan Sabha, Pune Sarvajanik Sabha, Bombay Association etc.. These organizations felt for the need for an over arching political organization so went in to form Indian National Congress in 1885. The declining sections of society, Muslim and Hindu landlords and kings also decided to came together to oppose the all inclusive politics of Congress, which in due course became the major vehicle of the values of freedom movement. These declining sections were feeling threatened due to the social changes. To hide their social decline they projected as if their religion is in danger. They also did not like the standing up to the colonial masters by Congress, which had started putting forward the demands for different rising social groups and thereby for India. Congress saw this country as ‘India is a Nation in the making’.

As per declining sections of landlords and kings; standing up to, not bowing in front of the ruler is against the teachings of ‘our’ religion so what is needed according to them is to promote the loyalty to the British. They, Hindu and Muslim feudal elements, came together and formed United India Patriotic Association in 1888. The lead was taken by Nawab of Dhaka and Raja of Kashi. Later due to British machinations the Muslim elite from this association separated and formed Muslim league in 1906, while in parallel to this the Hindu elite first formed Punjab Hindu Sabha in 1909 and then Hindu Mahasabha in 1915. These communal formations argued for Muslim Nationalism and Hindu nationalism. Hindu nationalists also developed the political ideology of Hindutva, articulated particularly by Savarkar in 1923 in his book ‘Hindutva or Who is a Hindu?’ This was an enviable situation for British as such groups would weaken the rising national movement. On one side they quietly supported the Muslim League and parallel to this they handled Hindu Mahasabha with velvet gloves.

Taking a cue from the ideology of Hindutva, RSS came up in 1925, with the path of Hindu Nationalism and goal of Hindu Nation. The values of rising classes embodied in the persona of Bhagat Singh, Ambedkar, Gandhi, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and many others mainly revolved around Indian Nationalism, built around the principles of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. The ideology of Muslim League selectively drew from some Muslim traditions to assert the caste and gender hierarchy of feudal society. While Hindu Mahasabha and RSS had tomes like Manusmriti to talk about similar graded hierarchies of caste and gender. Muslim and Hindu communalists were not part of freedom movement as freedom movement was all inclusive and aimed at secular democratic values. Muslim and Hindu communalists drew from glories of respective Kings of the past and kept aloof from anti British struggle, some exceptions are always there to show the evidence of their participation in the freedom struggle.

Gandhi’s attempt to draw the masses in to anti British struggle was the major point due to which the Constitutionalists like Jinnah; traditionalists of Muslim League and Hindu Mahasabha further drifted away and consolidated themselves after 1920s. The trajectory of Hindu Nationalism from the decade of 1920 becomes very clear, to be on the side of British to oppose the Muslim Nationalists. Same applies to Muslim League, as it regarded Congress as a Hindu party. The Freedom of the country and tragic partition led to Muslim Leaguers going to Pakistan while leaving sufficient backlog to sustain Muslim communalism here. Hindu Nationalists in the form of Hindu Mahasabha and RSS gradually started asserting themselves, beginning with murder of Mahatma Gandhi, who surely was amongst the best of the Hindus of that century and probably of many a centuries put together. Hindu Nationalists formed first Jan Sangh and later present BJP. The major issue taken up by these nationalists was opposition to cooperative farming, public sector and undertook a program called ‘Indianization of Muslims’.

The identity related issues have been the staple diet for religious nationalist tendencies. ‘Cow as our mother’, Ram Temple Ram Setu, Abolition of article 370 and Uniform civil code has been the foundation around which emotive hysterical movements have been built. While they keep bringing to our notice as to under whose rule more riots have taken place, one forgets that the root of communal violence lies in ‘Hate other’ ideology spread by communal streams. And most of the communal violence led to coming to power of communal party. Its major offshoot is polarization of communities along religious lines. Modi’s claim the democracy leads to polarization is misplaced wrong as in democratic politics the polarization is along social issues, like Republican-Democrat in America. Polarization around social policies-political issues is part of the process of democracy. The polarization brought about by the politics of Hindu nationalism or Muslim nationalism is around identity of religions. This is not comparable to the processes in US or UK. The polarization along religious lines is against the spirit of democracy, against Indian Constitutions’. Major pillar of democracy is Fraternity, cutting across identities of religion caste and region.

Modi himself, a dedicated RSS swayamsevak has been steeped in the ideology of Hindu nationalism. He glosses over the fact that the large masses of Indian people, Hindus never called and do not call themselves Hindu nationalists. Gandhi was not a Hindu nationalist despite being a Hindu in the moral and social sense. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad was not a Muslim nationalist, despite being a devout Muslim, being a Muslim scholar of highest caliber. During freedom movement also most of the people of all religions’ identified with Indian Nationalism and not with religious nationalism as being projected by Modi and company. Even today people of different religions identify with Indian nationalism and not with religious Nationalism on the lines of Modi and his ilk.

Hindu nationalism will require a Ram Temple; Indian nationalism requires schools, universities and factories for employing the youth. Hindu nationalism is exclusive and divisive, Indian Nationalism is inclusive; rooted in the issues of this world, and not the identity related ones.  Unfortunately Hindu nationalists have been raising the pitch around identity issues undermining the issues of the poor and marginalized. The Indian Nationalism, the product of our freedom movement is being challenged by the Hindu nationalism in India, Buddhist Nationalism in Myanmar and Sri Lanka and is a major threat to the process of democratization in those countries, Muslim  Nationalism has wrecked havoc in Pakistan, and many other places.

This is the dark tunnel of History, where such invocations of religion in the arena of politics take a semi respectful place, as being witnessed in many parts of the World and more so over in India. One hopes the distinction between religious nationalism and Indian nationalism will not be lost focus of!

Hindu nationalism, does not subscribe to the affirmative action, so the term appeasement of minorities has been floated. For Hindu nationalists, the proactive supportive action for vulnerable religious minorities is a strict no, while for democratic nationalism, this is the norm. One has to see the clever ploy of the Prime Minister aspirant, to call himself a Hindu nationalist. This is one more attempt to indulge in dividing the Indian society along religious lines.