તાજેતરનાં ત્રણ આંદોલનોના અગ્રણીઓ નાતજાતવાદથી ઉફરા રહીને નરવી નાગરિક ભોંય ન કેળવી શકે ?

જાન્યુઆરીનું પહેલું અઠવાડિયું બેઠું ન બેઠું અને ત્રણ વાનાં એક જ અરસામાં બની આવ્યાં : સર્વોચ્ચ અદાલતે એના બહુમતી ચુકાદામાં રોકડા શબ્દોમાં કહ્યું કે ધરમમજહબ, નાતજાત અને ભાષા સુધ્ધાંની સાંકડી અપીલને ધોરણે ચૂંટણી લડવાની વાત બંધારણીય ધોરણે અગ્રાહ્ય છે. ચૂંટણી, આ ચુકાદાના શબ્દો ટાંકીને કહીએ તો, એક ‘સેક્યુલર એક્સરસાઇઝ’ છે. બીજી પાસ, ગુજરાત છેડે ઓ.બી.સી., પાટીદાર, દલિત ત્રણે આંદોલનના નેતાઓએ એક મંચ પર આવીને વાત કરી ગુજરાત વિધાનસભાની ચૂંટણી ચાલુ વરસે થવાની છે, પણ તે પહેલાં ઉત્તર પ્રદેશ સહિતનાં પાંચ રાજ્યોમાં ચૂંટણીનું સમયપત્રક જાહેર થઈ ગયું છે અને 11મી માર્ચે પરિણામો પણ જાહેર થઈ જશે.

આ ત્રણે વાતોને એકસાથે મૂકીને જોવાતપસવા જોગ છે. સર્વોચ્ચ અદાલતના જે ચુકાદાની આરંભે જિકર કરી એના સગડ દબાવતાં 1995ના જસ્ટિસ વર્માના એ ચુકાદા સુધી સ્વાભાવિક જ પહોંચી જવાય છે કે હિંદુત્વ એ તો એક જીવનરીતિ (વે ઑફ લાઇફ) છે. એ કોઈ ધર્મ (રિલીજન) નથી. જો કે, સર્વોચ્ચ અદાલતે હજુ લગી આ અવલોકનને સીધું તપાસ્યું નથી – પાંચ જજોની બેન્ચ પર છોડયું છે – પણ સાંકડી અપીલો અને સેક્યુલર જાહેર બાબતો સબબ દો ટૂક વાત ચોક્કસ કરી છે. પણ વર્માના જે અવલોકનને હજુ પાધરું તપાસવાનું બાકી છે. એ જોતાં ચૂંટણીમાં ધરમમજહબ તરેહના કાર્ડનો ઉપયોગ નહીં જ થાય એમ કહી શકાતું નથી.

વસ્તુત: 1955ના હિન્દુત્વ ચુકાદા સંદર્ભે પાછલાં વરસોમાં જસ્ટિસ વર્મા ખાસા સચિંત અને વ્યથિત હતા. 2002માં માનવ અધિકાર પંચના અધ્યક્ષને નાતે ગુજરાતની મુલાકાત લેવાનું બન્યું ત્યારે એમને આ ‘જીવનરીતિ’નો જે સાક્ષાત્કાર થયો તે પછી પોતાના સ્વાધ્યાયસદ્ભાવી ચુકાદાના દુરુપયોગ બાબતે એ ખાસા વ્યથિત હતા તે આપણે એમનાં વિદુષી પુત્રીની સાહેદીથી જાણીએ છીએ. મુદ્દે, હિંદુત્વ એ ‘જીવનરીતિ’ છે, કોઈ ‘ધર્મ’ નથી એવી બાલમીમાંસા એક આ સદભાવી ગાથાને આભારી હતી. મૂળ પ્રશ્ન ધર્મ વિ. જીવનરીતિ એ નહોતો, પરંતુ હિંદુ ધર્મ(અગર જીવનરીતિ)ને હિંદુત્વ નામની રાજકીય વિચારધારામાં ફેરવવા વિશેનો હતો. આ પ્રકારનું રાજકીય વિચારધારાકરણ હિંદુ ધર્મને એક ઝનૂની ભૂમિકામાં મૂકી આપે છે જે, હિંદુ વિચાર જેની ટીકા કરે છે તેવા ઇસ્લામ કે યહૂદી ધર્મમતના સેમેટિક તેવરની બની રહે છે.

‘હિંદુત્વ’ અને ‘હિંદુ ધર્મ’ બે તત્ત્વત: ન્યારી બાબતો છે એ રીતની સૂક્ષ્મ સમજ પર પહોંચતી કસરત હજુ બાકી હોય તો પણ સર્વોચ્ચ અદાલતે સાંકડી અપીલો પર ખેલાતા રાજકારણની અવૈધ તાસીર જરૂર બોલી બતાવી છે. હાલના પેટા ચૂંટણી કમિશનર નસીમ ઝૈદી કહે છે કે અમે આ ચુકાદાથી બંધાયેલા છીએ, તો પૂર્વ વડા ગોપાલસ્વામી પણ એ મુદ્દે નિ:સંશય છે કે આ ચુકાદા સાથે શિવ સેના કે અકાલી દળ જેવા સારુ પોતાનું નામ બદલવાની પણ નોબત આ‌વી શકે છે. માત્ર શિવ સેના જ શા માટે, મુસ્લિમ લીગને પણ આ અભિગમ લાગુ પડે છે.

મુશ્કેલી ત્યાં છે કે ભાજપ હિંદુત્વને રાષ્ટ્રવાદ રૂપે ઘટાવે છે, અને ‘ધર્મ’ તેમ જ ‘ત્વ’ વચ્ચે વિવેક નહીં કરી શકતો મોટો સમુદાય એ ધારીએ રાષ્ટ્રવાદ સારુ ખેંચાણ અનુભવે છે. આ ખેંચાણ કોમવાદ ને રાષ્ટ્રવાદ વચ્ચેની ભેદરેખાને ખતમ કરી નાખી એક નવો જ જોસ્સો બલકે ઝનૂન જગવી શકે છે.

નજીકના ઇતિહાસમાં જરી પાછે પગલે જઈએ તો આ હિંદુરાષ્ટવાદી ઉઠાવ સામે વિશ્વનાથ પ્રતાપ સિંહે મંડલાસ્ત્રનો પ્રયોગ કર્યો હતો. નાતજાતમાં વિભકત હિંદુ ધર્મમાં જાતિગત ઉચ્ચાવચતાની જે સ્વાભાવિક અવસ્થા (અનવસ્થા) પ્રવર્તે છે તેની સામે વચલા પછાત વર્ગો કે કથિત નીચલા વર્ગોને વિકાસતક આપવાનો અભિગમ મંડલ ભલામણોની પૂંઠે હતો તે સૌ જાણે છે. આપણે ત્યાં વર્ગ અને વર્ણની જે અજબ જેવી મિલાવટ જોવા મળે છે એમાં મંડલ અભિગમ એક સમાનતાલક્ષી ચેષ્ટા હતી. ગોળબંદ થઈ મજબૂત રાજકીય શક્તિ તરીકે ઊભરી શકતી હિંદુ વસ્તી, નાતજાતગત ઊંચનીચની સભાનતાના ઉજાસમાં મંડલ ખેંચાણ અનુભવે એ સમજી શકાય એવું વાનું છે. આમે ય હિંદુત્વને ધોરણે ગોળીબંધ થવા માટે મુસ્લિમ જેવો ‘ધ અધર’ (નઠારો ઇતર) જરૂરી બની રહે છે, અને એ ન હોય ત્યારે તમે હિંદુ કરતાં વધુ તો વાણિયાબ્રાહ્મણ કે કોળીકણબી બની રહે છે.

ગુજરાતે તાજેતરમાં પાટીદાર, દલિત અને ઓ.બી.સી. એ ત્રણ મોટા ઉઠાવ જોયા છે. હવે, આ ઉઠાવના આગેવાનો જો એક મંચ પર આવી કોઇ સહિયારું પ્લેટફોર્મ ઊભું કરવાનું વિચારતા હોય તો દેખીતી રીતે જ એ ભા.જ.પ.ના હિંદુત્વ સામે પડકારરૂપ બની રહે છે. પટેલ અનામત એ કદાચ એક ભળતો પડકાઈ ગયેલો મુદ્દો છે. પણ હિંદુત્વ રાજનીતિ અને પટેલવાદ (સવર્ણ માનસિક્તા) જે રીતે સમીકૃત માલૂમ પડતાં હતાં એમાંથી એક ન્યાય-અને-સમતાલક્ષી ધક્કાની ગુંજાશ એમાં જરૂર રહેલી છે. બને કે ઓ.બી.સી. અને દલિત ઉદ્યુક્તિઓ સાથે એનું જોડાવું તે માટે ખાણદાણઇંધણ પૂરાં પાડી શકે.

વસ્તુત: આ ત્રણે ઉઠાવ જે રીતે ઉભર્યા છે તેમાં ગુજરાતના બહુઘોષિત વિકાસ મોડેલની વિષમતામૂલક વાસ્તવિકતાનો સ્વીકાર પડેલો છે. હિંદુત્વ અને વિકાસની કોકટેલની આ ગુજરાત કીમિયાગરી મે 2014માં એકત્રીસ ટકા મતે દિલ્લીમાં ગાદીનશીન થઈ તે હજુ હમણેની હકીકત છે.

2019નાં પરિણામોની તાસીર અને તરાહના ટ્રેલર રૂપે જેનાં પરિણામો હોવાનાં છે તે 2017ની વિધાનસભાકીય ચૂંટણીઓમાં રાજકીય રીતે ગોળબંદ હિંદુત્વ સામે વાસ્તવિક વિકાસવંચિતોનો મુદ્દો ઉભરી શકશે કે કેમ તે જોવું રહે છે, કેમ કે સર્વોચ્ચ અદાલતના ચુકાદાએ સાંકડી ને ઝનૂની અપીલો સામે લાલબત્તી ધર્યા છતાં આપણે રાષ્ટ્રવાદના સ્વાંગમાં ઊભરી શકતા કોમવાદથી કે વંચિતોના મૂળગામી રાજકારણને બદલે ધ્રુવીકૃત નાતજાતનાં ભયસ્થાનોથી પરિચિત છીએ.

ગુજરાતમાં તાજેતરના ત્રણ ઉઠાવોના અગ્રણીઓનું એકમંચ થવું, એક અભિગમ અને પ્રક્રિયા તરીકે, કોમવાદ ને નાતજાતવાદના કળણથી ઉફરાટે નરવી નાગરિક ભોંય કેળ‌વવા ભણીની ગુંજાશ કેમ ન દાખવી શકે?

વીસ–પચીસ ટકા મતે હાંફી જતાં હિંદુત્વને ‘વિકાસ’ના વાજીકરણથી એકત્રીસ ટકે પહોંચાડ્યા પછી કદાચ કોઈ નવા પેચપવિત્રાની જરૂર વરતાય છે. ભષ્ટ્રાચાર સામે લડવાનો નારો જે એકદમ ધૂણતો અને જીવતો કરાયો છે – ‘તેઓ કહે છે, ઇંદિરા હટાવો; હું કહું છું, ગરીબી હટાવો’ની તરજ પર ‘તેઓ કહે છે, મોદી હટાવો; હું કહું છું કે ભષ્ટ્રાચાર હટાવો.’ એ ગુગલી સામે મતદારે દાવ લેવો રહેશે. અહી હિંદુમુસ્લિમખ્રિસ્તી છે, અહીં કોળીકણબીદલિતવાણિયાબ્રાહ્મણ છે, પણ નાગરિક નથી એ કદાચ પાયાનો પ્રશ્ન છે. જો એ નાગરિક હોય તો એને નોટબંધીથી નજરબંધી જેવું શા સારુ થવું જોઈએ? રાજ્યમાં લોકઆયુક્ત નીમવામાં નામકર ગયેલ મુખ્યમંત્રી અને કેન્દ્રમાં લોકપાલ નીમવામાં ઠાગાઠૈયા કરતા પ્રધાનમંત્રી ભ્રષ્ટાચાર સામે ખરે જ લડવા ઇચ્છે છે?

2014 અને 2019 અધવચ આવી મળેલી આ એક અચ્છી વિચારસંધિ છે.

સૌજન્ય : ‘વિરોધી વાયરા’, “દિવ્ય ભાસ્કર”, 07 જાન્યુઆરી 2017

Prof. Nirmal Kumar Bose (1901-1972) was a radical anthropologist, for whom social reconstruction was more important than building sociological theories.  He was a humanist, a Gandhian and a great visionary.  Bose made original and lasting contribution in the field of anthropology and the concept of culture.  However, his academic pursuits did not touch the heights it would have as he plunged into the freedom struggle.  He made a choice, he preferred the harsh prison sentence to the luxury of intellectual pursuit at a time when every man was rising to meet the call of the nation for freedom from foreign rule.  The loss of the world of academics was the gain of the independence movement.

Q. Is love or non-violence compatible with possession or exploitation in any shape or form? If possession and nonviolence cannot go together, then do you advocate the maintenance of private ownership of land or factories at an unavoidable evil which will continue so long as individuals are not ripe or educated enough to do without it? If it be such a step, would it not be better to own all the land through the State and place the State under the control of the masses?

A. Love and exclusive possession can never go together. Theoretically when there is perfect love, there must be perfect non-possession. The body is our last possession. So a man can only exercise perfect love and be completely dispossessed, if he is prepared to embrace death and renounce his body for the sake of human service.

But that is true in theory only. In actual life, we can hardly exercise perfect love, for the body as a possession will always remain with us. Man will ever remain imperfect, and it will always be his part to try to be perfect. So that perfection in love or non-possession will remain an unattainable ideal, as long as we are alive, but towards which we must ceaselessly strive.

Those who own money now are asked to behave like trustees holding their riches on behalf of the poor. You may say that trusteeship is a legal fiction. But if people meditate over it constantly and try to act up to it, then life on earth would be governed far more by love than it is at present. Absolute trusteeship is an abstraction like Euclid’s definition of a point, and is equally unattainable. But if we strive for it, we shall be able to go further in realizing a state of equality on earth than by any other method.

Q. If you say that private possession is incompatible with nonviolence, why do you put up with it?

A. That is a concession one has to make to those who earn money but who would not voluntarily use their earnings for the benefit of mankind.

Q. Why then not has State-ownership in place of private property and thus minimize violence?

A. It is better than private ownership. But that too is objectionable on the ground of violence. It is my firm conviction that if the State suppressed capitalism by violence, it will be caught in the coils of violence itself, and will fail to develop nonviolence at any time. The State represents violence in a concentrated and organized form. The individual has a soul, but as the State is a soulless machine, it can never be weaned from violence to which it owes its very existence. Hence I prefer the doctrine of trusteeship.

Q. Let us come to a specific instance. Supposing an artist leaves certain pictures to a son who does not appreciate their value for the nation and sells them or wastes them, so that the nation stands to lose something precious through one person’s folly. If you are assured that the son would never be a trustee in the sense in which you would like him to be, do you not think the State would be justified in taking away those things from him with the minimum use of violence?

A. Yes, the State will, as a matter of fact, take away those things, and I believe it will be justified if it uses the minimum of violence. But the fear is always there that the State may use too much violence against those who differ from it. I would be very happy indeed if the people concerned behaved as trustees; but if they fail, I believe we shall have to deprive them of their possessions through the State with the minimum exercise of violence. That is why I said at the Round Table Conference that every vested interest must be subjected to scrutiny, and confiscation ordered where necessary with or without compensation as the case demanded.

What I would personally prefer would be not a centralization of power in the hands of the State, but an extension of the sense of trusteeship; as in my opinion the violence of private ownership is less injurious than the violence of the State. However, if it is unavoidable, I would support a minimum of State-ownership.

Q. Then, sir, shall we take it that the fundamental difference between you and the Socialists is that you believe that men live more by self-direction or will than by habit, and they believe that men live more by habit than by will; that being the reason why do you strive for self-correction while they try to build up a system under which men will find it impossible to exercise their desire for exploiting others?

A. While admitting that man actually lives by habit, I hold that it is better for him to live by the exercise of will. I also believe that men are capable of developing their will to an extent that will reduce exploitation to a minimum. I look upon an increase of the power of the State with the greatest fear, because although while apparently doing good by minimizing exploitation, it does the greatest harm to mankind by destroying individuality, which lies at the root of all progress. We know of so many cases where men have adopted trusteeship, but none where the State has really lived for the poor.

Q. But have not those cases of trusteeship which you sometimes cite been due to your personal influence rather than to anything else? Teachers like you come infrequently. Would it not be better, therefore, to trust to some organization to effect the necessary changes in man, rather than depend upon the casual advent of men like yourself?

A. Leaving me aside, you must remember that the influence of all great teachers of mankind has outlived their lives. In the teachings of each prophet like Mohammed, Buddha or Jesus, there was a permanent portion and there was another which was suited to the needs and requirements of the times. It is only because we try to keep up the permanent with the impermanent aspects of their teachings that there is so much distortion in religious practice today. But that apart, you can see that the influence of these men has sustained us after they have passed away. Moreover, what I disapprove of is an organization based on force which a State is. Voluntary organization there must be.


The Hindustan Times, 17-10-1935

———————————————————————————————–

Nirmal Kumar Bose met Gandhi on November 9 and 10, 1934. The report was published after correction by Gandhi.

In the course of my life I have had the good fortune to get to know many of the world's leaders and in my career to have served with many men of outstanding talent. In the long catalogue I recall only a few that I would describe without hesitation as truly great men. I have no hesitation however in placing Mahatma Gandhi in this very short list of the elect of our times.

I only came into contact with him at the end of his life at a point when, in political terms at any rate, his power was beginning to wane or at least he was withdrawing from the front line of responsibility. The unavoidable accent on parti­tion in the Transfer of Power meant a bitter frustration of his life-long aims and ideals to him it appeared more as vivisec­tion than victory. In such circumstances of partial eclipse he might have left a blurred impression, or appear to have done so; but from the first encounter my wife and I were both aware that here was a unique personality, one whose authority transcended the normal bounds of human leadership; one who quickly became a real friend.

His role in the momentous events covering the last year of his life is now a part of history. He knew where his duty lay, and that it went beyond participation in the actual negotiations.

Essentially it involved his exerting, his overwhelming influence upon the people themselves when the communal frenzy threat­ened to engulf the whole social order. I do not exaggerate when I say that Gandhi on the Maidan in Calcutta in August 1947 was one of the great incidents of the century, a personal tour de force bordering on a miracle.

For those engaged in the study of mass psychology here is a supreme case history. With their passions roused and knives poised hundreds of thousands were diverted from seeking release through blood and revenge and were brought to re­cognition of their brotherhood through the love Gandhi, their physical captive, was able to instil in them.

Such an example was the manifestation of his power as a Mahatma and far transcended mere political authority. It involved the assumption of personal responsibility which turned the final sacrifice of his life by assassination into a martyrdom that helped to heal the wounds of others.

In his death the meaning of his life was finally justified for all to see. As they came in their thousands to pay their last respects by the banks of the Jumna and witnessed his frail body being consumed in the flames, the cry of "Gandhi is immortal" was a shout of triumph. I shall never forget that scene, and have often reflected subsequently on just how it was that Gandhi impinged so deeply on our era. The shock waves of his death reached out across the world.

I think the secret was that he symbolized a profound challenge to the prevailing trends of the 20th century. Not for nothing has it been described as the age of violence, with every conceivable technique of personal and public pressure exploited to achieve the objectives of material power.

I think there was a universal recognition that his response to this challenge was highly original. His whole concept of confronting force with non-violence was not just the dream of a visionary but an approach to the heart of the matter, a call to the conduct and aspiration of the individual and a demand upon self-control without which civilization, however sophisticated in other respects, must ultimately collapse. When asked his views about the desirability of having an Admiral for Viceroy I am told he pointed out that he did not object to dealing with military men, for their stock-in-trade was discipline, and controlled force as used by armies and navies was at least preferable to the uncontrolled violence of the mob.

He commanded world attention and respect not only be­cause of the originality of his approach to the grave problems confronting his country but also because he was throughout consistent.

The suggestion that he was devious and unpredictable is, in my submission, based on a failure to follow the longsequence of his words and deeds. Like other great revolutionaries before him he sought to conserve and not to overthrow. Remarkable evidence in support of this contention is to be found in his attitude to Swaraj in so far as it might affect the future rela­tionship of a free India with a Britain whose power he was striving to remove and supersede.

When the time came in 1947 to find a formula in which the Transfer of Power could be contained we revived the concept of Dominion Status. Acceptance of the idea by all the parties concerned was regarded by many, at the time, as startling. But as long ago as 1924, in his Presidential Address to the 39th session of the Indian National Congress at Belgaum, Gandhi uttered these prophetic words:

The above sketch presupposes the retention of the British connection on perfectly honourable and absolutely equal terms. But I know that there is a section among Con­gressmen who want under every conceivable circumstance complete independence of Britain. They will not have even an equal partnership. In my opinion, if the British Government mean what they say and honestly help us to equality, it would be a greater triumph than a complete severance of the British connection. I would therefore strive for Swaraj within the Empire but would not hesitate to sever all connections, if severance became a necessity through Britain's own faults. I would thus throw the burden of separation on the British people. The better mind of the world desires today not absolutely independent States warring one against another but a federation of friendly, interdependent States. The consum­mation of that event may be far off.

What better example could there be of his political insight and moral judgment which of course was reflected in his great disciples Nehru and Patel?

Without relying on any of the modern techniques he was a supreme master of mass communication. Instinctively he knew the appropriate place and time to perform the appropriate symbolic act which could bring all to an awareness of his aims. This attribute alone had the hallmark of genius. In achieving this unison he was deeply suspicious of all artificial aids. He once told a member of my staff that he was really too old to master the mysteries of radio: he was not, he said, in principle against using it altogether, but he had to know whom he was addressing, whether it was five or five lakhs. So when he finally consented to speak over All-India Radio at the time of the Punjab crisis he asked to do so on the basis that he was addressing his audience in this instance the refugees at the Kurukshetra Camp directly and exclusively. Here again, far from being old-fashioned, he was probably ahead of his time. The sincere message may well need the closed circuit.

In the dark and difficult days ahead the light of his example continues to shine and his still, small voice to be heard above the din of rival ideologies and insults.

He had the greatness to embody the oppressed and their sufferings, and to seek truth wherever it might be found. By his standards a change of heart could be even more important than a change of mind. To borrow the famous phrase of Anatole France, "He was a moment in the conscience of mankind."

'Mahatma Gandhi 100 Years', Gandhi Peace Foundation, 2009.

courtesy : http://www.mkgandhi.org/articles/mahatma-gandhi-a-real-friend.html?utm_source=Gandhi-Journal&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Gandhi+Journal+Article-II+%28+January+2017+%29+-+MAHATMA+GANDHI+%3A+A+real+friend