રાષ્ટ્રવ્યાપી અર્થઘટન : રોજી માટે મહાનગરોમાં આવતાં, દયનીય સ્થિતિ ભોગવતાં ભારતીય વંચિતોની છેલ્લી ચેતવણી સમી ચૂંટણી !

દિલ્હીની ઐતિહાસિક ચૂંટણીના પરિણામ આવી ગયા છે. કુલ 70 બેઠકોમાંથી દેશ પર એકચક્રી રાજ કરવાનો મનસૂબો લઈને નીકળેલા ભા.જ.પ.ને માંડ 3 અને કેજરીવાલની ‘આપ પાર્ટી’ને 67 બેઠકો મળી છે. દેશના બધા એકઝીટ પોલે, કેજરીવાલને બહુમતી આપવાની આગાહી કરેલી, પણ વડાપ્રધાન નરેન્દ્ર મોદીએ એકઝીટ પોલને બજારૂ ગણાવી દિલ્હીમાં ભા.જ.પ. સરકાર બનાવશે એવી આગાહી કરી હતી.

ચૂંટણી લડી રહેલા બે રાજકીય પક્ષો, વિજયી ભા.જ.પ. અને સતત પરાજયને વરેલી કોંગ્રેસની તુલનામાં ‘આપ’ નવો અને નાનો પક્ષ છે. એક અર્થમાં અસમાન મુકાબલો હતો. બીજી તરફ વિજેતા વડાપ્રધાન અને બધી કરામતોના ખેલાડી અમિત શાહની જોડીએ દિલ્હીની ચૂંટણીને પ્રતિષ્ઠાનો સવાલ બનાવી ભા.જ.પ.ના 50 હજાર કાર્યકરોને ચોક્કસ બૂથોની જવાબદારી સોંપી હતી. કેન્દ્રના 100થી વધુ મંત્રીઓ અને સાંસદોને મેદાનમાં ઉતાર્યા હતા. રાષ્ટૃીય સ્વયંસેવક સંઘના હજારો કાર્યકરો પણ જોડાયા હતા. ખુદ વડાપ્રધાને મોટી ચાર રેલી સંબોધી હતી. ચૂંટણીની સંધ્યાએ કેટલી ય ગેરકાયદે વસાહતને નિયમિત કરવાની જાહેરાત કરી હતી. ચૂંટણી પ્રચારમાં અમેરિકાના પ્રમુખ બરાકની મુલાકાતનો પણ ઉપયોગ કરાયો હતો.

તો ય આવું કંગાળ પરિણામ અનેક અર્થમાં અનન્ય સાબિત થવાનું છે. ‘આપ’ને 54 ટકા મત મળ્યા છે. 15 વર્ષ દિલ્હી પર રાજ કરનાર કોંગ્રેસની સ્લેટ સાવ કોરી થઈ ગઈ છે. ચૂંટણીના મતદાનનું પૃથ્થકરણ કરનાર નિષ્ણાતોએ વેપારી, સુખી મધ્યમ વર્ગ, ગરીબ મધ્યમ વર્ગ અને ગરીબ એવા વિભાગો કે બ્રાહ્મણ, વૈશ્ય, લઘુમતી, ખ્રિસ્તી, પછાત વર્ગ એવા વિભાગો કે પછી બિહારી, ઉત્તરાંચલ જેવા વિભાગો પાડી પૃથ્થકરણ કરી જોયું હતું. પણ પરિણામ બતાવે છે કે, આ વખતના ‘આપ’ની તરફેણમાં થયેલું મતદાન મોજા જેવું કદાચ ‘આપ’ની ધારણા બહારનું સાબિત થયું છે. ભા.જ.પ.ના આગેવાનો અને કાર્યકરો મિથ્યાભિમાનમાં ગળાડૂબ હતા કે આખી ઝૂંબેશ, ‘કિરણ સામે કેજરીવાલ’ થવા દેવાને બદલે, પરાજયથી ગભરાઈ, ‘મોદી વિરુદ્ધ કેજરીવાલ’ બનાવી દીધી. પરાજયની જરા સરખી ગંધ આવતાં ભા.જ.પ.ના આગેવાનો બધો દોષ, કિરણ બેદીને છેલ્લી ઘડીએ મુખ્યપ્રધાન તરીકે ઉતારવાની વાત પર ઢોળી દેવા માંડ્યા હતા.

પણ સત્ય એ છે કે, થોડા સમયથી ખાસ કરીને દસ વર્ષથી ભારતમાં સામાજિક, સાંસ્કૃિતક, સાંસ્કારિક, નૈતિક અને રાજકીય મૂલ્યોમાં જબરો ઘસારો જોવા મળ્યો છે. વિશેષ કરીને નૈતિક અને રાજકીય મૂલ્યોની જાળવણીમાં રાજનેતાઓ અને સામાજિક આગેવાનો એ વાત ભૂલી ગયા છે કે, સ્વાતંત્ર્ય આંદોલનની જવાબદારી સંભાળવા છતાં ગાંધીએ હજારો કાર્યકરોમાં નૈતિક અને સામાજિક મૂલ્યોનું જે સિંચન કર્યું હતું એને જાળવી રાખવામાં અને જતન કરવામાં આપણે નિષ્ફળ ગયા છીએ. એક તરફ આ ધોવાણ અને બીજી તરફ ભૌતિક વિકાસની ભૂખમાં ભારતના કરોડો લોકોની મૂળભૂત જરૂરિયાતો સંતોષવાને બદલે વિદેશોના વિકાસના આંધળા અનુકરણમાં પડી ગયા છીએ. દિલ્હીની ચૂંટણી ઝૂંબેશ દરમિયાન એન.ડી. ટીવીના એન્કર રવિશકુમારે દિલ્હીમાં રોજી માટે છેક ઉત્તરાંચલ અને બીજા રાજ્યોમાંથી દિલ્હી આવી વસેલા ભારતીઓના જીવનની જે દયનીય સ્થિતિ ટીવી પર બતાવી, એ જોઈએ ત્યારે લાગે છે કે, ગરીબ નિરાધાર લોકો રોજી માટે રાજધાનીમાં આવી વસે છે તો સરકારો ઘર, વીજળી, પાણી જેવી પ્રાથમિક સગવડ આપવામાં કેવી બેદરકારી સેવે છે.

આવી જમીન પરની હકીકતોથી દૂર થઈ, બુલેટ ટ્રેન, સ્માર્ટ શહેરો કે ઈ-ગ્રામ જેવી વાતો કરી એનું આયોજન કરી એને માટે કરોડો રૂપિયા ફાળવવાનો શું અર્થ સમજવો? લાખો કુટુંબોને આવી હાલતમાં છોડી કોમનવેલ્થ રમતોત્સવની જરૂરિયાત સંતોષવા ફ્લાય ઓવર કે સ્ટેિડયમ બાંધવાનો કોઈ અર્થ ખરો! સુપ્રીમ કોર્ટે સામાજિક સભ્યતા જાળવવા મોટરગાડીના કાળા કાચ દૂર કરવા કે વી.આઈ.પી. વાપરે છે એ લાલબત્તીઓનો ઉપયોગ મર્યાદિત કરવા હુકમ કર્યો તો શિક્ષિતવર્ગ એને પાળવાનું ટાળે એ શું બતાવે છે કે, સુપ્રીમ કોર્ટના આદેશને પાળવાની વૃત્તિ ઘસાઈ ગઈ છે. ચર્ચિલે ગાંધીને ‘નગ્ન ફકીર’ કહી મશ્કરી કરી તો ય ગાંધીએ સાદગી કદી ય ન છોડી. એ જ દેશમાં વડાપ્રધાન 10 લાખ રૂપિયાનો સ્યૂટ પહેરી ઓબામાને મળવામાં જરા સરખો ય સંકોચ ન અનુભવે એ કેવું જાહેરજીવન ? બીજી તરફ રોજી વગરનો વિકાસ અને દેશમાં જેટ ઝડપે વધતી કરોડપતિઓની સંખ્યા ધનિક રાષ્ટ્રો કરતા ભારતમાં વધે એવી અસમાનતા આપણને ન ખૂંચે એવી કેવી મનોવૃત્તિ?

ભારતનું સૌભાગ્ય છે કે, આવી વિસંવાદી સ્થિતિ છતાં, વિશ્વમાં સૌથી વધુ ગરીબોની સંખ્યા ધરાવતા ભારતની જનતાનો રોષ મત મારફત જ પ્રગટ થાય છે. હિંસક માર્ગે નહીં. પણ, આ હવે આખરી ચેતવણી સમજી જાહેરજીવનનાં મૂલ્યો પુન: સ્થાપિત નહીં કરીએ તો પરિસ્થિતિ હજુ બગડશે. ચૂંટણીમાં ખેલની પુનરાવૃત્તિ થઈ. કોંગ્રેસ જેવી જૂની સંસ્થાને એની ભૂલોના કારણે જેમ ભા.જ.પ.ને હાથે ધોવાણ સહેવાનો વારો આવ્યો, બરાબર એમ જ ભા.જ.પ.ના હવાઈ વચનોમાં વિશ્વાસ ગુમાવી અને ‘આપ’ જેવા નવા અને નાના પક્ષે ધોઈ નાખ્યો. અહંકાર ઓગાળી નાખે એવા પરાજય ભોગવવાનો વારો આવ્યો. 200 દિવસનું શાસન; ચાર મોટી રેલી અહંકારી પ્રચારના બદલામાં રાજધાનીએ ભા.જ.પ.ને એક, બે અને ત્રણ બેઠક અાપી. આ લાલબત્તીની ચેતવણી રાજનેતાઓ સમજશે ખરા.!

સૌજન્ય : “દિવ્ય ભાસ્કર”, 12 ફેબ્રુઆરી 2015

Why was Gandhi compared so frequently to Socrates? This is what Nehru said in 1953 : "I remember once I was reading Plato's Dialogues and someone was describing the effect that Socrates had on him. As I read this Dialogues, I was astonished because it was almost a description of the effect that Gandhiji had on me."

Scholars as different as Raghavan Iyer and Gilbert Murray also made the comparison between Gandhi and the ancient philosopher. Perhaps the comparison took hold because there were some similarities between the two men.

Both were influential thinkers, both attracted political followers in their own lifetimes, and both met with violent ends.  But one of the many interesting features of the comparison is that Gandhi himself appears to have identified with Socrates and even translated a work of Plato into Gujarati.

Gandhi first began to identify with Socrates when he was living as a foreigner in South Africa and he wrote his Gujarati version of Plato's Apology in 1908. The translation began to appear in April of that year, a few months after he adopted the term "satyagraha" and had begun to agitate against the Transvaal Asiatic Registration Act. Gandhi's speeches and rallies on behalf of the Transvaal Asians had resulted in a trial, and, in January 1908, he was sentenced to jail for two months. It was while he was serving his prison sentence that he read the Apology in an English translation, and he prepared his own version while in jail or soon after his release. The Gujarati rendition of the Apology appeared in installments in Indian Opinion, the newspaper that he edited in South Africa.

The Apology is a text by Plato that purports to be the speech given by Socrates when he was put on trial in Athens in 399 BC.  Gandhi was drawn to Socrates' sense of duty, self-sacrifice, and moral conviction; he thought of the Athenian as a principled figure who was ready to defend (the word apologia means "defence" in classical Greek) his philosophy in all situations, and who did not back down even when faced with the death penalty.

This was a moment when Gandhi was fighting the government over the unequal treatment of Asians and was exhorting the members of his community to persevere in their efforts against the authorities.  As Gandhi wrote in 1908, "We have much to struggle for, not only in South Africa but in India as well.  Only when we succeed in these [tasks] can India be rid of its many afflictions.  We must learn to live and die like Socrates.  He was, moreover, a great satyagrahi."

Socrates affirmed to Gandhi the importance of self-sacrifice at a time when the latter was developing his ideas of satyagraha and Indian nationalism.

The title that Gandhi used in his serialization was Ek satyavirni katha, which can be translated as "Story of a true soldier" or "Story of a soldier of truth", the second being the form employed in the English edition of the Collected Works.  "True soldier" is arguably more martial than "soldier of truth", but in any case the association of Socrates with "soldier" in Gandhi's version suggests that he thought of Socrates as a figure who was ready to wage war for the truth.  Gandhi's Socrates was religious and pious, a man who said he believed in God, and a philosopher who had a soldier's toughness to withstand the hostility that he encountered in many quarters.

Rather than choose words or terms that might connect Socrates simply or uniquely to a philosophical, spiritual, or religious tradition, Gandhi referred to the Athenian as a satyavir and by that expression emphasized his willingness to fight unto death for his cause.

This dimension of Gandhi's homage to Socrates may surprise those of us who are accustomed to think of him as an advocate of non-violence.  But we might see Gandhi's reframing of the Apology as an attempt to reclaim the figure of the warrior from the sphere of violent conflict, and to redeploy the warrior in the service of ahimsa and satyagraha.  It is not only soldiers who are calm in the face of death, Gandhi appears to be saying, but also moral heroes and philosophers such as Socrates. The militarization of the title can be interpreted as a strategy on the part of Gandhi to show that moral philosophers are no less courageous than soldiers in the face of life-threatening danger.

This sentiment, incidentally, is not entirely alien to Plato's Apology where Socrates uses military language to describe his commitment to philosophy.  In his speech, Socrates likens himself to a soldier at his post and implies that he would not disobey God, just as a soldier would not disobey his commander.

Gandhi soon published his version of Socrates' speech as a pamphlet, and the pamphlet was sufficiently alarming to the British authorities in Bombay that they responded by banning it. According to a notice in The Bombay Government Gazette, the translation of the Apology was seized by officers since it deployed "words which are likely to bring into hatred and contempt the Government established by law in British India and to excite disaffection to the said Government." These expressions were formulaic and evoked the strictures of the Press Act of 1910.  Yet clearly it was not Socrates or Plato who troubled the British administration, and what was vexing to administrators was the knowledge that the author of the pamphlet was Gandhi.  

In fact, three other works were banned at the same time by the government, namely, Hind Swaraj, Sarvodaya, and a copy of a speech delivered by Mustafa Kamal Pasha, and all happened to be published by Gandhi.  Of the items on this list, Hind Swaraj (which appeared in the year after Ek satyavirni katha) is the most celebrated, and it's worth pointing out that this text, too, resembles a Platonic work and takes the form of a dialogue.

There was a particular irony to the ban placed on Gandhi's translation of Plato. Plato had occupied a central place in the British educational system for many decades before Gandhi decided to try his hand at a version.  Benjamin Jowett used to liken his students in Oxford to the guardians of Plato's Republic and remarked that they ran the Empire if not the world.  It was in a Victorian English translation that Gandhi himself had first encountered the text of the Apology in South Africa.  In a very real sense, therefore, Gandhi's approach to Socrates in South Africa was made possible by the circulation of books in the British Empire, and by the admiration for Plato that flourished in nineteenth-century Britain.

The irony of the ban is compounded by the circumstance that, in Gandhi's lifetime, the British administrator Frank Lugard Brayne wrote Socrates in an Indian Village and a series of related titles as part of his programme of rural development in the Punjab.  In 1931, more strikingly, Sir John Gilbert Laithwaite, a British civil servant and later private secretary to the Viceroy, wrote a pseudo-Platonic dialogue between Socrates and Gandhi, for the entertainment of another civil servant, Sir (Samuel) Findlater Stewart, the Permanent Under-Secretary of State for India. The transcript of the "dialogue" can be found in the India Office Records at the British Library in London.

Gandhi was an eclectic and insatiable reader and was influenced by a variety of texts, Indian and non-Indian, so it is not altogether surprising that he discovered Socrates, Plato, and the Apology, or even that he invoked them against colonial forces.  Socrates, of course, has had a rich and complicated afterlife in many ethical and political movements: in the nineteenth century and earlier, he was compared to Jesus Christ, another figure with whom Gandhi also has been linked.  Yet, there is something revealing in seeing the level of praise that Gandhi heaps upon Socrates and the manner in which he turns him into a soldier of truth.  

Gandhi correctly observes in his preface that it was not just outsiders and foreigners to whom Socrates directed his teachings but also, and mainly, the inhabitants of his city.  Gandhi writes, "Socrates was a great satyagrahi."  And then adds: "He adopted satyagraha against his own people."  That is the struggle which made him, in Gandhi's words, "a great soul".

Phiroze Vasunia is Professor of Greek at University College London and the author, most recently, of  – The Classics and Colonial India (Oxford, 2013).

Story First Published: February 11, 2015 00:27 IST

courtesy : http://www.ndtv.com/opinion/how-gandhi-used-socrates-738600

BJP leaders speak in contradictory terms; PM's denial not enough

An unimaginable crisis has gripped our country. Only a straightforward, clear declaration by the Prime Minister can clear it. I am referring to the advertisement issued by the Government of India's I.B. Ministry on the Republic Day carrying in the background a watermark of the Preamble to the Constitution. But a devious interloping was done by publishing the Preamble as it was in 1950, thus deliberately omitting the words “Socialist” and “Secular” from the Preamble which have been in the existing Preamble since 1976. This interpolation clearly shows that B.J.P. ministers are trying to flaunt their status of being corporate friendly and stooges of the R.S.S. boss. I have no problem with how the ministers present themselves. But the Indian government would be guilty of serious constitutional lapses and cannot be allowed to continue in office if by its word or action it conceals the mandate of the present Preamble containing “Secularism” and “Socialism”. In that context the Union Government would be an interloper because the Supreme Court has held that the “Preamble is the key to the Constitution” and therefore the objectives of “Socialism” and “Secularism” must govern the programmes and policies of the Government of India. The perverted suggestion that Socialism and Secularism were not in the original Preamble and were incorporated in 1976 is ludicrous because the governments have to follow the Constitution as it exists.  

Another strained argument is that the word Socialism was not in the original Preamble. It is immaterial because the government is to see the present Preamble. Even this fatuous explanation shows ignorance of the facts and the law. At the time of framing the Constitution it was clearly understood that in India we were setting up a Socialist State. This was brought out specifically by Dr. Ambedkar in reply to Prof K.T. Shah, who wanted “Socialism” to be incorporated in the Constitution at the drafting stage. Dr. Ambedkar, while refusing to do so for technical reasons, explained that Socialism as such was already included in the directive principles. He explained thus: “What I would like to ask Prof. Shah is this: ‘If these directive principles to which I have drawn attention are not socialistic in their direction and in their content, I fail to understand what more socialism can be.’”    

As for the equally fatuous argument of the effect of incorporating Socialism in the Preamble in 1976, the Supreme Court pointed the fallacy as far back as 1983: “Though the word ‘Socialism’ was introduced into the Preamble by a late amendment of the Constitution that Socialism has always been the goal is evident from the directive principles of State policy. The amendment was only to emphasise the urgency.”   

May I also remind the Prime Minister and his colleagues that according to Article 75(4) of the Constitution of India, they took the oath before entering their office which requires them to swear in the name of God that they would bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India. The oath covers the Preamble to the Constitution existing at the time of taking the oath and not to the original Preamble or Constitution framed in 1950. Anyone suggesting to the contrary would be taking the ludicrous stand that the oath would not oblige the ministers to follow the mandate of over 100 amendments to the Constitution. President Obama would have been horrified by this interpretation of the Union ministers because it would mean that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution brought in almost a hundred years after the original Constitution (from which we have incorporated Article 14 of our Constitution, and which is the sheet anchor of equality and non-discrimination for any citizen). If that was the interpretation Obama could never have been the President because the original US Constitution did not have the 14th Amendment which was one of the biggest weapons for ending racial discrimination in the U.S.

B.J.P. leaders speak in contradictory terms. While Mr. Venkaiah Naidu says that the government is for Secularism in the Preamble, his colleague and lawyer Ravi Shankar Prasad says the government wants to delete it. There can be no hedging on Secularism. In fact, even to talk of deleting the word “Secularism” from the Preamble would not only be an act of sedition but also an impossible exercise. This is because the Supreme Court in Bommai's case (1974) categorically held that “Secularism is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution” and the “Preamble is a part of the provisions of the Constitution.”

In the Keshvanand Bharti case (1973) the Supreme Court held that the power to amend (Article 368 of the Constitution) did not enable Parliament to alter the basic structure of the framework of the Constitution. Thus Secularism being a part of the basic structure of the Constitution is non-amendable. Secularism, being part of the basic structure of the Constitution, must be held to have been incorporated automatically in the Preamble to the Constitution right from the beginning in 1950.

No, Mr. Prime Minister, a mere denial, and that too contradictory, is not enough. A covert attempt to undermine the force and strength of the Preamble cannot wish away the fears in the country, especially amongst the minorities. A full-throated public repudiation in “Man ki Bat” and on T.V. was given by the Prime Minister that his government unequivocally and without any hesitation believed in the mandate of Secularism in the existing Preamble of the Constitution of India. The public statements of the Shiv Sena, an ally of the B.J.P., reflect the danger of silence on the part of Prime Minister Modi. He must therefore speak out immediately because to speak is a moral duty and to keep silent a sin and unforgivable.  

courtesy : “The Tribune”, Monday, February 09, 2015