Dec 2009 rh

Rs. 15 / month

Vol. 73 No 9

THERADICALHUMANIST (Since April 1949)

DECEMBER 2009 Formerly : Independent India (April 1937- March 1949)

Founder Editor: M.N. Roy

477 Rosa Luxemburg -Gerd Callesen

Face to Faith -Andrew Copson

Humanist Approach to Social Security: Water Crisis -R.K.A. Subrahmanya

Polygamy under good Faith!

-R.A. Jahagirdar

Kashmir’s Azadi sans Freedom -Balraj Puri

Political History of Andhra Pradesh --Innaiah Narisetti

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

DECEMBER 2009

The Radical Humanist

Download and read the journal at www.theradicalhumanist.com

Vol. 73 Number 9 December 2009

—Contents—

Monthly journal of the Indian Renaissance Institute Devoted to the development of the Renaissance Movement; and for promotion of human rights, scientific-temper, rational thinking and a humanist view of life.

Founder Editor: M.N. Roy Contributory Editors: Professor Amlan Datta Professor A.F. Salahuddin Ahmed Justice R.A. Jahagirdar (Retd.)

Dr. R.M. Pal Professor Rama Kundu Editor: Dr. Rekha Saraswat Publisher: Mr. N.D. Pancholi Printer: Mr. N.D. Pancholi Send articles to: Dr. Rekha Saraswat C-8, Defence Colony Meerut, 250001, U.P., India Ph. 91-121-2620690, 09719333011 E-mail articles at: rheditor@gmail.com Send Subscription / Donation Cheques to: Mr. Narottam Vyas (Advocate), Chamber Number 111 (Near Post Office) Supreme Court of India, New Delhi, 110001, India n.vyas@snr.net.in Ph. 91-11-22712434, 91-11-23782836, 09811944600 In favour of: ‘The Radical Humanist’ Sometimes some articles published in this journal may carry opinions not similar to the radical humanist philosophy; but they would be entertained here if the need is felt to debate and discuss upon them. —Rekha 1

1. From the Editor’s Desk: Crucifix an insignia of secularism?

—Rekha Saraswat 2 2. Contributory Editors’ Section: Polygamy under good Faith!

—R.A. Jahagirdar 3 3. Guests’ Section: Rosa Luxemburg —Gerd Callesen 7 Face to Faith 12 —Andrew Copson Humanist Approach to Social Security - III Water Crisis —R.K.A. Subrahmanya 14 4. Current Affairs: Kashmir’s Azadi sans Freedom —Balraj Puri 17 5. IRI / IRHA Members’ Section: Political History of Andhra Pradesh — N. Innaiah 19 6. Student’s & Research Scholar’s Section: Adoption Laws in India —Gomati Desai 24 7. Book Review Section: A Brave Attempt —Dipavali Sen 28 8. Remembering Professor Iqbal Ansari: —K.A. Siddique Hassan 30 9. Collected Works of Raojibhai Patel 31 10. Humanist News Section: 32 11. From the Indian Renaissance Institute’s (IRI) Literature Archive 38-40

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

From the Editor’s Desk:

Rekha Saraswat

Crucifix an insignia of secularism? a crucifix be the emblem of national Canculture, history and identity, tolerance and secularism? The European court definitely says “No”.

Although it does not ask the government-run Italian schools and educational institutions to remove crucifixes from their class-rooms but it has supported Soile Lautsi, a mother of two children, in her complaint that education institutions should not bear signs of any religion because this curtails the freedom of secular education and of choosing or abandoning any or no religion.

I read this news given by Alessandra Rizzo, Associated Press Writer, about Europe’s court of human rights, from Strasbourg, France, which gave its ruling under the continent’s rights convention that “display of crucifixes in Italian public schools violates religious and educational freedoms.”

Italy’s government is giving the usual plea given by believers of all religions for their particular religious emblems that “the crucifix was a national symbol of culture, history and identity, tolerance and secularism.”

This is the story of Soile Lautsi who, eight years ago, dared to confront the established system of decorating class rooms with Roman Catholic symbols on the plea that her children could not get a secular education with crucifixes all around them in their schools. Although the Italian Government claims to run its schools on secular principles but the news, I read, says that crucifixes are considered more a civic representation than a religious demonstration.

A seven-judge panel has sided with the complaint filed

DECEMBER 2009

by Soile Lautsi and ordered the Italian Government to pay Euro 5,000 to her in damages. Of course, it has allowed the Govt. to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights’ Grand Chamber of 17 judges against its ruling if the government so desires.

The Court gave a historic judgment saying that “The presence of the crucifix ... could easily be interpreted by pupils of all ages as a religious sign and they would feel that they were being educated in a school environment bearing the stamp of a given religion….” The most unbiased decision ever heard was the judgment’s ruling that such symbols could be “disturbing for pupils who practiced other religions or were atheists.”

One can only wish that such an impartial and fear-free judiciary may develop on the Indian soil too. It is really commendable that the Court could take such independent decision without being influenced by the Government and could categorically reject the government’s plea that ‘crucifixes were promoting pluralism in Italy.’

Kudos to the honesty of the judicial system of Europe’s court of human rights! It is not a small thing to give such a ruling in a country which has deep Roman Catholic roots in its society.

One need not wonder why religions are more and more using the crutches of morality, cultures and civilizations to give emphasis to their significance and to lay importance to their existence, now. How else can they survive in the contemporary world where science and reason are challenging them from all corners! They try to bring in ambiguity in the concept of religion by using values, identity (and here secularism too) as its synonyms so that they may lure civilized people to follow it for the sake of decency and morality in the civil society.

I feel religion was born out of man’s inherent moral sense and not vice versa. It evolved as the bi-product of the innate trait of probity in him. It was conceived as the ultimate imagination of his goodness. Man created the credo of faith in semblance to that ideal state of affairs in which he wanted himself to be. But he forgot that he was depending upon that prop which existed only in his own mind’s eye. Gradually, the shadow became larger than the self and man became the victim of his own creativity.

He lost confidence in his instinctive morality at the altar of a simulated code of ethics. It is time to wake him up!

2

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

DECEMBER 2009

Contributing Editor’s Section:

R.A. Jahagirdar

[Justice R.A. Jahagirdar (Retd.), former President of Indian Radical Humanist Association and former Editor of ‘The Radical Humanist’ is now one of the members of the Contributing Editorial Board of The Radical Humanist.]

Polygamy under good Faith! are several misconceptions about the There many marriages of Prophet Muhammad.

After Christ, monogamy became the rule in Christian world. More than six hundred years after Jesus, Muhammad preached the teachings of Quran. Prior to this, in Arabia, there was no limit to the number of wives a man could take. Even in India and among the Hindus polygamy was prevalent.

Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaja had seven wives. Yet nobody suggests it was as a result of sexual appetite.

They were all, except probably the first one, mostly political alliances. Till 1937 in the erstwhile Bombay Presidency, polygamy was permissible. At the instance of Smt. Leelavati Munshi, Bombay Prohibition of Bigamous Act was passed. At that time, Vidarbha was a part of Central Provinces. It is not necessary to mention names, but it is well known that some men in Bombay went to Vidarbha or Central Provinces and took a second wife. In 1956, Hindu Marriage Act was passed and bigamy among the Hindus all over India was abolished.

Yet, in Rajasthan, polygamous marriages are taking place. The fact that Muhammad took eleven wives need not cause merriment. One should not forget that in Arabia, a man could take any number of wives during the time of Muhammad. Muhammad put a ceiling on the 3

number of wives a Musalman can take at one time. It should also be remembered that a Musalman could take four wives at one time as permission and not a mandate.

The following is the relevant verse of Quran: “If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly With the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two, Three or Four; But if you fear that ye shall not Be able to deal justly (with them), Then only one or (a captive), That your right hands possess, That will be more suitable, To prevent you from doing injustice.”

—Yusuf Ali’s translation Properly interpreted, the verse is pro-monogamy.

Muhammad was famous for honesty and fairness. He belonged to Qureshi tribe which was initially hostile to him. So Muhammad had to leave Mecca for Medina where in a short while he became practically ruler.

Before that, however, in Mecca he was appointed as a trade agent of a rich widow. This is rather surprising as we are told Arab women were backward.

Impressed by the shining character of Muhammad, Khadija, the widow, married him. It was a happy marriage. Khadija herself was a noble woman. Some children were born, but only Fatima, who married Ali later, survived. When Muhammad started receiving messages from God through Gabriel, he was mentally disturbed. It was at this time that Khadija assured he was really the recipient of God’s messages. In fact Khadija was the first convert to Islam. As long as Khadija lived, Muhammad did not take a second wife. It was a happy marriage. This was Rangeela Rasul?

When later the third wife of Muhammad, Aisha, teased Muhammad about his attachment to the memory of Khadija, he said: “I cherish her memory because she was so loyal to me.

When people belied me, she believed in me; when people were afraid to help me, she stood by me like a rock; she was my best companion and bore my children.”

From the above it is easily seen that he must have grieved immensely by the death of Khadija. After Khadija’s death, Muhammad’s life was in disorder.

There was none to support him in his mission. Children were small and there was none to look after them. A wife had become a necessity. Friends’ suggestion to him to marry again was accepted. It was at this time he took a second wife. One Sauda and her husband were among

THE RADICAL HUMANIST the earliest converts to Islam. Her husband died as a result of which Sauda was helpless. She had a son to look after. It was then Muhammad took pity on her and also to meet his needs he married her.

Aisha, the daughter of Abu Baker, the first Caliph, was too young. But Abu Baker was too eager to cement his relationship with Muhammad. There is some dispute as to how old Aisha was. In any case she was not a child.

Muhammad was persuaded to marry her, though the marriage was consummated long after. Aisha was intelligent, beautiful and sprightly. As a wife she accompanied her husband on many of his expeditions.

Here I feel tempted to narrate one incident in her life. On one occasion, Aisha left the caravan in order to answer call of nature. While returning she noticed that she had lost her necklace. She returned to search for it but the caravan left her, thinking that she was in the caravan. A young Arab, Safwan, noticing her alone and recognizing her gave his camel to her.

Because of this incident, Muhammad decreed that allegations of adultery should not be easily made. The marriage of Muhammad was not the result of love or carnal desire or conquest in war. Abu Baker was the closest companion of Muhammad and it was he who persuaded Muhammad to marry her. After the passing away of Muhammad, Aisha has contributed the largest number of Hadiths.

Hafsa, the widowed daughter of Umar, a close companion of Muhammad, was the fourth wife. Umar, it should be remembered, later became a caliph. Hafsa’s husband had been fatally wounded in the Battle of Badr.

In order to relieve the distress of Hafsa, Muhammad took her as his wife. Hafsa was not particularly pleasant.

Accounts of her tell that she was temperamental. She was given to jealousy and anger. Muhammad could not have found her attractive to marry her. Even after marriage, she boasted that she argued and quarreled with the Prophet.

But kind hearted and of sweet disposition was Muhammad’s fifth wife. Zainaba was the widow of a man who had died in the Battle of Uhud in which Muslims were defeated by the Quraish. She took care of the poor and the destitute. She was so much devoted to the welfare of the poor that she came to be known as “Umm al-Masakin” (mother of the downtrodden). After marriage, she lived only for three months.

DECEMBER 2009 Salama’s husband had died in the Battle of Uhud and thus became a widow. Salama came from an illustrious family of her time, belonging to Banu Uhud. Though one of the earliest converts to Islam, she was not allowed to go to Medina by the Quraish. It was a form of persecution for having converted to Islam. However, she escaped. She had a son from the marriage but found herself pregnant at this time. Naturally Salama was despondent. It was at this time the Prophet offered his hand in marriage. She was now with two children. The Prophet assured her that he would take care of them as his own. What a thoughtfulness! Salama was deeply touched and married him. A widow, with two children.

Initially reluctant to marry, Muhammad married her.

Can you say sex was a factor? Not at all. Salama was the sixth wife.

Salama was no doubt attractive. She was very pious, fasting three times a month. She often prayed. Once the Prophet disapproved of her wearing a golden necklace.

She immediately broke into pieces and distributed them among the poor. She was the last wife of the Prophet to die.

A lot of criticism and controversy surrounds the marriage of Zainab with the Prophet. She was the seventh wife. She was 38 years old when she became the wife of Muhammad. She had been earlier married to Zain bin Haroth who had been adopted by the Prophet.

Muhammad desired that Zainab should marry Zain. It must be remembered that Zainab was a cousin of Muhammad who could have married her if he was sexually minded. In fact he had given a handsome present to Zainab on her marriage. Initially she was reluctant to marry Zain but the Quran (33-36) disapproved any one disregarding any decision of the Prophet. The marriage which was actually celebrated for eight years Hijrat turned out unhappy. Both Zainab and Zain were good persons in their own ways, but there was temperamental incompatibility. Zainab was unhappy that she was the wife of a man who was once a slave.

Zain ultimately divorced her. Zainab could not be tossed about. Muhammad took her as his wife as a duty.

Some commentators have criticized that Muhammad by this marriage indulged in incestual relationship as Zain was his adopted son and Zainab was thus his daughter-in-law. But the Quran says: “We joined her in marriage to thee: In order that (in future) There may be

4

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

DECEMBER 2009

no difficulty To the Believers in (the matter of) marriage with the wives of their adopted sons, when the latter have dissolved with the necessary (formality) (their marriage) with them.” (33-37) It was revealed that an adopted son cannot be son; filial affiliation has to be natural. Islam regarded adoption as pagan which is to be destroyed.

Juwairriya was the daughter of Harith Bin Abi Darbar, the chief of a powerful tribe of Banu Mustaliq. She was married to a scion of the same tribe. Both she and her father were inveterate enemies of Muhammad. Her father had taken part in the Battle of Trenches.

Juwairriya was taken as a prisoner in this war. Sometime later her father approached Muhammad and begged her release on payment of ransom money. Juwairriya herself suggested that the best course would be for her to marry the Prophet. Everyone was happy and the marriage took place. She was the eighth wife of Muhammad. She became a great friend of Aisha.

The ninth wife was Ramallah, also known as Umm Habiba. She was the daughter of Abu Sufiyan and his wife of Hind. They both hated Muhammad. But Ramallah and her husband had embraced Islam much against the wishes of her parents. They were harassed at Mecca and hence quietly escaped to Medina.

Unfortunately, Ramallah’s husband took to drinking which ultimately resulted in his death, thus making Ramallah a widow. Ramallah was a helpless woman inciting sympathy in Muhammad’s heart. Feeling sorry for her the Prophet took her as his wife. She being one of the earliest converts to Islam and having steadfastly stood by the Prophet’s religion, she was of great strength to Islam. Muhammad was thus tempted to wed her hoping that the marriage would help the cause of Islam.

She was a widow and for the fact that she was a devout Muslim, Muhammad was attracted by her.

There was strength in her convictions. At the time of her marriage, Ramallah was 38 years old and her life she dedicated to Muhammad and the cause. She had two children from her first marriage but none from Muhammad whom she survived by nearly two decades.

Her brother, Muawiya, had become the caliph.

Safiya came from a Jewish family. She was taken as a prisoner of war in the Battle of Khyber. She was married to a well known Jewish poet, Salm bin Mishkan. But the marriage was not successful and her husband divorced

5

her. A Jewish warrior married her but unfortunately he was killed in the Battle of Khyber. It was thus that she was taken a prisoner of war and became a maid to one of the Prophet’s companions. The other companions pointed out that she, being the daughter of a tribal chief, ought to be given due honour. She divorced once, widowed once, yet the Prophet decided to give her due honour by marrying her. Safiya was also known as Zainab. She became a Muslim and willingly married the Prophet. She bore the Prophet no children. Though converted to Islam, she continued to have faith for her Jewish kith and kin.

Maimunah bin Harith was the eleventh wife of the Prophet. She was divorced by her first husband and the second husband died in tragic circumstances. She was then 51 years of age and not a young damsel. Her condition was pitiable, though she was the sister-in-law of Abbas, Muhammad’s uncle. Abbas was a devout Muslim whose canvassing led to the marriage of Muhammad and Maimunah.

Incidentally, Khaled-bin-Waled, the Sword of Islam, was her nephew.

The marriage was between the members of two leading tribes. The citizens of Mecca resented this marriage and they did not allow it to take place in Mecca. So it was solemnized in another town. Maimunah was of a kind and charitable disposition. She liberated many slaves.

The story of Mary or Maria Qibitia needs to be told in some details. Mary and Shirin were sisters. They were slaves of Archbishop of Alexandria. They were not Arabs; they were not Muslims. The Archbishop gave them to Muhammad as slaves. Muhammad himself did not believe in slavery. He freed both of them. There is some difference of opinion between the Western writers and the Islamic ones. Though the Archbishop sent these two maidens to the Prophet but requested the latter to treat them with honour and dignity. It is not explained why a request was made to treat them with honour when they were presented to Muhammad. Anyway he gave Shirin to one of his companions.

As already mentioned, Mary was not an Arab, but she was treated on par with other wives. The Quran says: “O Prophet, why dost thou forbid (thyself) that which Allah has made lawful for thee? Seekest thou to please thy wives? And Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.”

Mary abided with Muhammad. She was beautiful being white with good features. She had black hair.

THE RADICAL HUMANIST Muhammad was pleased with her. There is some controversy as to whether she became married to Muhammad. Dr. Rafiq Zakaria says: “Maria’s case is different; she gave birth to Muhammad’s son, Ibrahim, and has, therefore, been regarded by majority of jurists as his wife”.

(Muhammad and the Quran, p.44) After Khadija, Maria was the only one who gave a son to Muhammad. There is nothing in history to show that Muhammad ever married. Even Zacharia, a devout Muslim, says it is regarded that she was the wife of the Prophet. Be that as it may, it is clearly established that she was treated with equality with the wives of Muhammad.

I have already extracted above the verse which enjoins Muslims to have only one wife; in exceptional circumstances and subject to certain conditions, he can marry two or three and not more than four. Marrying more than one wife is not the pillar of Islam; it is not a mandate but a conditional permission.

Yusuf Ali, authoritative translator of the Quran says: “The unquestioned number of wives of the Times of Ignorance was now strictly limited to a maximum of four, provided you could treat them with perfect equality; in material things as well as in affection and immaterial things. As this condition is most difficult to fulfil, understand the recommendation to be towards monogamy.”

At this stage I must make a brief reference to Rangila Rasul case. In that case, one Rajpal was convicted in the lower Court of an offence under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that the author had made several derogatory remarks about the Prophet of Islam. He had made some unsavoury remarks about the many marriages of Muhammad who was, in consequence, called “Rangila Rasul”. In appeal the Lahore High Court set aside the conviction holding that Section 153A “was intended to persons from attack on a particular community as it exists at the present time and was not meant to stop polemics against religious leaders however scurrilous and in bad taste such attacks may be”. Actually, Section 153A made punishable an act which would cause enmity between two communities.

Rangila Rasool case is of 1927. Subsequently, a new Section has been introduced.

We are dealing with the situation as it existed in the 17th

DECEMBER 2009 Century when a man could take any number of wives.

The restriction by Muhammad was in fact revolutionary.

It was with the advent of Christianity that monogamy became the rule in the West.

For the sake of record I am mentioning the five pillars of Islam which are as follows:1. Shahada – the declaration that there is no God but the God (Allah Shahada); 2. Salat requires Muslims to pray five times a day; 3. Zakat – gift of a fixed portion of your money to the poor – Necessity not merely desirability; 4. Sawm- is to fast for thirty days during Ramadan; and 5. One must make at least one pilgrimage to Mecca during one’s life – Haj. The merriment about Muhammad having many marriages started in the West which assumed that a man can have two wives. Even George Bernard Shaw commented that the celibacy of Jesus was nobler than the wallowing of Muhammad in harem. Muhammad did not have a harem. Raj Pal of Rangila Rasul fame echoed the feelings of the West clean forgetting that many of our Kings had many wives. Shivaji had seven; Bhupinder Singh of Patiala is said to have more than 100. The detestable system of ‘Kulin” marriages allowed a man to take many wives, though some of them he never saw.

Till Bombay Prevention of Bigamous Act was passed in 1937, at the instance of Lilavati Munshi, Hindus were in theory at least polygamous. In practice, however, Hindus were monogamous. It was emotionally and monetarily expensive to maintain two households.

It was only after December 1956, after the Hindu Marriages Act was passed, that bigamy became illegal among the Hindus. If you study census figures carefully, you will notice that there are marginally more bigamous marriages among Hindus than among Muslims. This is so in Rajasthan. Maybe, among poorer people, for economic reasons an additional hand is needed. The upshot of this article is that polygamy, though allowed under conditions among the Muslims, you will not find such marriages. Even in Muslim countries, such as Tunisia and Morocco, polygamy is legally prohibited.

With progress in time and progress in society and with the gradual liberation of women everywhere, bigamy and polygamy will disappear.

6

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

DECEMBER 2009

Guests’ Section:

Letter from Vienna

Gerd Callesen [Dr. Gerd Callesen is a renowned historian of the Labour Movement and is now editing a volume (114 volumes planned) of the collected works of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels—‘Marx Engels Gesamtausgabe’. He contributes his ‘Letter from Vienna’ to ‘The Radical Humanist’ every third or fourth month on a regular basis. gerd.callesen@chello.at]

Rosa Luxemburg Luxemburg (born in Zamosc, Poland, Rosa March 1871 – murdered in Berlin, January 1919) was born into a Jewish middle-class family living in the part of Poland which at the time belonged to the Russian Empire. The family moved to Warsaw in 1880 and Rosa was admitted to a ‘lycee’ for girls. She joined an illegal socialist circle while still at school. In 1889 she was smuggled to Switzerland to avoid being imprisoned.

Like many other students from Poland and Russia she matriculated at the University of Zurich and began to study economics and history. She involved herself in the socialist groupings in Zurich and after only a few years she was recognized as a leading theoretician among the Polish socialists. In 1893 she became the co-founder of the revolutionary Social-Democratic Party of the Kingdom of Poland (SDKP) which was in opposition to the more rightwing Polish Socialist Party (PPS).

Together with Leo Jogiches and Julian Marchlewski-Karski she was to head the new party for the next 25 years.

In the SDKP paper, the ‘Sprawa Robotnicza’, she argued for the necessity of a European Revolution as an

7

inescapable condition for Polish independence, while the PPS made Poland’s independence as a democratic state its primary goal. Luxemburg maintained that at least a revolution in Austria, Russia and Germany would be necessary if the three parts of Poland pro tempore governed by these countries were to achieve national self-determination. For her national self-determination was not a goal in itself. Thus, from the beginning of her political “career” she was a staunch internationalist, a position she upheld till her death.

In the II International: In 1893 she participated in the third congress of the II International at Zurich as a delegate of the SDKP, but was excluded as a result of objections from the PPS. But her defence of the positions of the SDKP made a convincing impression on the many of the other participants. In 1896, at the fourth Congress, she could no longer be excluded. In one of her speeches she went against the majority of the other delegates as she did not subscribe to Marx’ actual words in support of Turkey against the Czarist regime. Marx and Engels had always maintained that, at least from 1815, Russia was the central conservative power in Europe. By means of large-scale bribery and military means Russia had upheld the existing order in all of Europe; Russian power and influence prohibited for any progressive developments everywhere. For this reason Marx and Engels had seen Russia as the most important obstacle to their political objectives and had supported the independence of Poland, had supported Turkey in her wars with Russia, as well as other political initiatives against Czarism. In the actual situation in the 1890ies Luxemburg made a turnaround. She did not criticize Marx and Engels, but saw that political strategy required a re-evaluation: Turkey suppressed various nations on the Balkans and in keeping with the spirit of Marx’ political intentions she analyzed the new situation. Old Wilhelm Liebknecht – a follower of Marx’ since 1849 – was incapable of following this line of thought and criticized her vehemently as did several others. However they could not keep her down. She had grasped the theory much better than so many others who could not understand that Marxism was a living theory and that it had to be applied to the facts as they were, not as they had been.

National self- determination:

THE RADICAL HUMANIST In 1898 she published her doctoral thesis on “The Industrial Development of Poland”, in which she demonstrated that Poland and Russia now constituted a single economic unit, which would mean that a development into two divided political states would be a step backwards. As it was a university dissertation she could not use it to express her assessment of the historical task for the working class. This she did in subsequent speeches and articles. What she said was that the parties of the working class in Russia and Poland should co-operate towards overthrowing Czarism. This would bring freedom to all individuals, be they Russians, Poles or any other of the multitude of nationalities within the Russian Empire. This point of view was never really accepted by the other Polish parties (including the PPS) and instead became a point of dissension. Luxemburg was not opposed to Polish culture, she was not, as many have maintained, anti-national, but her point was another. For her the overthrow of capitalism must be given the highest priority. That was also what Lenin believed in, but from his point of view, as a Russian, national self-determination was necessary to get the revolutionaries of the many nationalities within Russia to work together. Luxemburg as a representative of one of the oppressed nations had to be sure that nationalistic tendencies did not gain supremacy in the emancipatory struggle – as they did for the PPS. In the German movement: After Luxemburg left the university she wanted to go to Germany to join the SPD – the German Social-Democratic Party. To be able to participate actively as a member of the party required her to become a German citizen. To achieve this she entered into a pro forma marriage with a party comrade, Gustav Lübeck.

Leo Jogiches, who for some years had been her “common law husband”, remained in her life for several years, also after she divorced Lübeck in 1903. Her relationship with Jogiches was complicated; both were very strong, self-centred persons who wanted to play first fiddle in their marriage. In the end, their personal relationship dissolved, but they maintained a close political relationship as leaders of the SDKP. In this party, she was the leading theoretician, the editor of the party newspaper, and its delegate at the Internationals conferences from 1896 onwards; in 1904 she became a member of the International’s Bureau. She was still a

DECEMBER 2009 young woman, but over the preceding decade she had developed into an insightful Marxist and was already known by some of the leading members of the international Labour movement.

Luxemburg immediately became involved in the German party; in 1898 she participated in the election campaign to the German parliament (Reichstag) in Silesia where a Polish minority was at home. They were mostly peasants and miners and committed Catholics.

The SPD had not as yet gained much influence on the broad masses of the population, but the well-organized campaign resulted in a break-through.

Reform and/or revolution: Frederick Engels had died in 1895, and shortly afterwards one of the leading party members, the editor of the party’s illegal weekly during the years 1880-1890, Eduard Bernstein, began a discussion on the tactics of the Labour movement in the current situation. He did not believe that a revolution was imminent. He did not think that things were ripe for a revolution as the predicted development of the population in the European countries into two opposing classes, the working class and the bourgeoisie, was not taking place: instead the middle classes were growing numerically thus undermining the expectations of the Social-Democratic parties. He was much influenced by the theories of the Fabian Society in Britain. These were rigidly opposed to the theories of Marx and his followers. Bernstein began a long series of articles in the theoretical weekly “Neue Zeit” (New Times) over a period of about three years. In them he expounded his revision of what he perceived as Marxism. This was the beginning of a long debate within the party in which almost all of the leading members of the party participated – Luxemburg was, of course, not a leading member as she had only just joined the SPD. But her series on “Reform or Revolution” published in the leading party paper “Leipziger Volkszeitung” (Leipzig People’s Daily) in September 1898 made her one. Her meticulous critique of Bernstein’s revisionism made her known as a left-winger in the SPD, whose leader at this time was August Bebel. Bebel was impressed by her and he supported her for many years to come. She was appointed editor-in-chief of the party paper in Dresden, but had to resign after only some weeks. However, she had had the opportunity to show what she could do – the reason for her resignation was partly internal strife and

8

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

DECEMBER 2009

probably also the fact that she was young and a woman.

She was now recognized as somebody who was willing to do what was necessary in and for the party; there was no doubt about her debating skills as a defender of living Marxism, a tool which could be used to explain events in the world. In “Reform or Revolution” she stated that a reform policy was necessary for the advancing labour movement and that revolution should not only to be used as a threat but as an actual possibility. In her interpretation, the concepts of reform and revolution were totally interwoven; one was dependent on the other. This was exactly what Bernstein and his followers – the pragmatic everyday politicians – could not see, they believed that reforms were the opposite of revolution, their slogan was reform or revolution, and they believed that a multitude of reforms would lead to the future new society in which everybody would have equal opportunity to live a fulfilled life. They really did not understand the economic theories of Marxism, although some of them grasped parts of the political theory. The two different tendencies lived side by side within the Social-Democratic parties in every country, over time the point would necessarily arise where pragmatists and revolutionaries had to decide which way to go. Pragmatic reformism would lead to a different goal from that which the Marxist socialists saw as a necessity.

Mass strike and political initiatives: In the coming years Luxemburg engaged in more battles at party conferences, in day-to-day life of the organization, in discussions at the Internationals conferences and in debates in various theoretical periodicals throughout the Continent. All this was with the intention to arrive at clarity about the way in which the Labour Movement had to go to achieve its objectives. Some of these debates were on the general theory like her criticism of the reformists, others centred on tactical decisions like the question of national self-determination versus cooperation with workers belonging to other ethnic groups within the boundaries of a single state or international cooperation – which, before the First World War, was often a reality in connection with strikes or other industrial conflicts.

She was very much aware of the fact that victories in one state provided the workers in other countries facing the same situation with better possibilities of succeeding. In

9

the first revolution in Russia (which included the Polish provinces) in 1905, she took an active part until she was captured by the police in Warsaw. Her experiences during the revolutionary rising she summed up in a booklet published in 1906 “The Mass Strike, the Political Party and the Trade Unions”. In this she tried to show what mass strikes and demonstrations, masses taking to the streets, initiatives taken by the working class population itself implied for progressive politics – these experiences ought to become part of the working-class arsenal in other countries. By contrast, the German party, and also the majority of the German workers, thought that winning elections would do the trick – they saw the party vote rise from 20 pc in 1890 to 32 pc in1903.

Her assessment of the Belgian struggle for universal suffrage was identical to that of Frederick Engels in the 1890ies, and she worked to promote mass demonstrations to be organized in support of extending suffrage, especially in one of the federated German states – Prussia – which had an especially undemocratic voting system. She knew, of course, that the German Parliament, the Reichstag, only had very limited possibilities of influencing German politics. Things were even worse in Prussia, but for several months in 1910 she toured Germany giving speeches, participating in meetings and demonstrations and writing articles. She did not do this because she believed that more parliamentarians would strengthen the workers’ cause or give them a better chance of getting bills through parliament – Germany was not a democratic state – but in the hope that mobilization of workers would lead them to a greater awareness of their own situation. Once universal suffrage was achieved in one country it could be won in another, and this movement could lead to a breakdown of the capitalist state. Again this was what Frederick Engels had explained to the party leaders in Germany, Austria, France and Italy in the 1890ies.

Luxemburg could not have known this, as these tactical steps were only explained in the correspondence Engels had with his contemporaries. Without being aware of this she followed in his footsteps – like him she was an advocate and practitioner of living Marxism.

The Accumulation of Capital: In the same spirit she took it upon herself to discuss economic problems. Luxemburg had become a teacher

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

DECEMBER 2009

in the Party Academy in Berlin where she taught as from the second year of the school’s existence. Students were mostly young men and a few women, 30 in all who in courses of six months’ duration learned what they needed to know to take part in developing policies to advance working-class interests. Luxemburg taught economics and she later used these lectures when she wrote “The Accumulation of Capital”. This was a scholarly work in which she tried to overcome some of the difficulties in the second volume of Marx’s “Capital”. Contemporary criticism of this work was harsh. Almost all other Marxist theoreticians thought she had not grasped the real problems: Lenin, Otto Bauer (one of the leading younger party leaders in Austria) and several others did not agree with her. This may have been correct at the time – capitalism was still not fully developed and had not drawn the whole world into one global economy. Later Marxists have shown that her evaluation of the state of colonies and semi colonies in particular were for the first time integrated into a Marxist economic analysis. Of course, this book deals with many other matters.

The role of the masses: There have been speculations about why Lenin ignored “The Accumulation of Capital” – most likely it was because he did not understand what Luxemburg was trying to do; but it has also been claimed that the reason is to be found in earlier clashes between him and Luxemburg – at the time she was far better known in International Socialist circles than was he. These clashes had been over a matter of great importance to Luxemburg: the role of the masses in a revolutionary situation and in the time leading up to this situation. For this reason she criticized Lenin’s party theory in an article for the “Neue Zeit” (“Organizational Questions of the Russian Social Democracy”, in English also published as “Leninism or Marxism”). It was true that Lenin tried to strengthen the party organization by drawing up new organizational principles – at least the new party model has become associated with him. The model was not unknown in several of the European-Social Democratic parties. It is also possible that Luxemburg (wilfully?) misunderstood Lenin or made a mockery of his intentions. But that is not the question here. However, what she actually wrote was important, what her point of view really was, because her tactics represent a tendency which has been present

in the Labour movement at least since Frederick Engels’ time. In 1889 he criticized the expulsion of several militant socialists from the Danish Social Democratic Party. The central leadership of the party would not accept the criticism emanating from this group. The party structure was highly centralistic, and Engels was reminded of a certain period in the history of the German party in which a dominant group around the charismatic leader of the time, Ferdinand Lassalle, led the party by ultra-centralistic means. Engels condemned this at the time as he did again in 1889. The letter in which he explains his stand was only printed in the 1930ies. So again Luxemburg could not have known about the point of view tabled by Engels. Nevertheless in 1904 she wrote: “… the errors committed by a truly revolutionary movement are infinitely more fruitful than the infallibility of the cleverest Central Committee.” In the same article she stressed the creativity of the masses, of the party members. A few years later, after the experiences of the revolution in Russia, she had a better basis on which to discuss this creativity and what it could achieve (The Mass Strike… mentioned above). The difference between Lenin and Luxemburg was a fact, but Luxemburg herself was not averse to maintaining discipline in her own party: she claimed that her understanding of political strategy was the correct one and for this reason expelled among others Karl Radek from the SDKP – she even demanded that Radek be expelled from the German party and broke with one of the strongholds of the Left in the SPD, the local organization in the harbour town Bremen, because the local SPD daily published some of Radek’s articles.

Nevertheless her theoretical views are in keeping with a very important tendency in the Labour movement. This is also confirmed by the discussion between Lenin and M.N. Roy at the 2nd Congress of the Communist International in July 1920. Here Roy formulated his own theory on the role of the national bourgeoisie as opposed to Lenin’s. Roy’s position was accepted not only by the congress but also by Lenin.

There was a strong correlation between Frederick Engels’ political tactics and those of Luxemburg. As already mentioned, Luxemburg could not have known the tactical advice Engels gave to his political partners in his letters. Even today not all letters have been published (they will be included in the Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe, MEGA) so we have to

10

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

DECEMBER 2009

conclude that openness in the discussion is an essential point in any emancipatory movement and must be recognized as such if these organizations are to be able to work effectively towards the overthrow of capitalism.

“Freedom only for the supporters of the government, only for the members of one party – however numerous they may be – is no freedom at all. Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently. Not because of any fanatical concept of ‘justice’ but because all that is instructive, wholesome and purifying in political freedom depends on this essential characteristic, and its effectiveness vanishes when ‘freedom’ becomes a special privilege.” This is a quotation from “The Russian Revolution”, her unfinished critique of the Bolshevik Revolution. Even if it is not the most central quote from this manuscript it clearly contributes to our understanding of her fundamental values.

For anyone interested in knowing more about Rosa Luxemburg’s life, revolutionary work and horrific death

11

should turn to one of the below-mentioned biographies.

In 1939 Paul Frölich published the first Luxemburg biography in Paris. The biography (“Rosa Luxemburg.

Ideas in Action”) was published in 1940 in London in the series “Left-Book-Club” by Victor Gollancz. This edition has been republished at least in 1972 and 1994.

Even if the biography is dated it must still be considered a politically insightful biography of great value – “a socialist classic” it has been called. Frölich who at the time still was a card-carrying Socialist provided a rounded picture of her interests and achievements.

Since then, an overwhelming amount of literature and discussion articles have been published, in English among others by Peter Nettl, Elzbieta Ettinger and Tony Cliff. Many of her important texts have been translated and quite a lot of these are to be found in the Marxist Internet Archive (www.marxists.org). In Germany an almost complete edition of her Works and Correspondence was published during the 1980ies and 1990ies in six respectively five volumes.

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

DECEMBER 2009

Andrew Copson [Mr. Andrew Copson is responsible for education and public affairs at the British Humanist Association.

This article was published on guardian.co.uk]

Face to Faith year is being celebrated as Charles ThisDarwin‘s year – the bicentenary of his birth and the 150th anniversary of On The Origin Of Species.

But 1859 saw the publication of a work just as influential and worthy of celebration, the contents of which are arguably more in danger of being forgotten by us than Darwin’s.

On Liberty was and remains John Stuart Mill’s best-known work. It is, as political philosopher Alan Haworth said in a briefing distributed to parliamentarians this year, “an object lesson in the systematization of those general principles which most effectively embody the only values most appropriate to a free people”. Mill advances a view based on freedom – freedom of thought, speech and association, underpinned by a respect for the free individual, including respect for the freedom of the individual to differ.

At a time when in politics threatens to divide society, On Liberty is a timely reminder that there is a way to conceive of society other than through the communalistic approach to diversity that places “groups” at the centre of policy rather than free individuals. Mill stands for free speech and discussion in all matters, including religious and political ones, because this is how society can test and refine propositions thought to be true – a rebuke to the idea that the law should censor free expression to protect the sensitivities of groups. If groups matter, in Mill’s view, it

is because the liberty of individuals to form them matters, and groups can never be allowed to tyrannize or enforce their own dogma on others.

However, On Liberty should be celebrated not just as a political handbook – it addresses, in Mill’s own phrase, “the wellbeing of mankind”. His work contains profound reflections on human flourishing that are a significant contribution to the humanist tradition. Mill’s view is that, “Among the works of man, which human life is rightly employed in perfecting and beautifying, the first in importance surely is man himself.”

He encourages us to value not just experience, but also the discussion and examination of experience, so we can make our choices reflectively, developing “the human faculties of perception, judgment, discriminative feeling, mental activity, and … moral preference.” He encourages us to ask “what would allow the best and highest in me to have fair play, and enable it to grow and thrive?” so we can become “more valuable” to ourselves and “therefore capable of being more valuable to others”. He believes that “human nature is not a machine … but a tree, which requires to grow and develop itself on all sides”.

So, although the principal relevance of On Liberty remains what it points towards as the way to organize ourselves politically, the insights of Mill into the ingredients of the good life for a non-religious person equally call for celebration by humanists in this anniversary year. We might also remember the ways in which Mill’s convictions about the worth and dignity of human life – vital principles for modern humanists – stimulated him in social action, opposition to slavery, and a commendably anachronistic appetite for gender equality.

The ideas Mill advanced in 1859 drew criticism from religious sources in particular. But the political principles he evolved are ones that can be shared today by people of any religion as much as by humanists. The outworking of Darwin’s ideas demonstrated how every one of us is linked on the tree of life – how just a couple of million years ago we were literally one family. The principles of On Liberty can bring us together on the basis of our common humanity in another way. If we want to be free to pursue our own conception of the good life and of human flourishing – religious or non-religious – we have to defend the freedom of others

12

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

DECEMBER 2009

as earnestly as we defend our own. This secular political Source: principle is accessible to people of all traditions and http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/20 benefits us all.

09/oct/30/john-stuart-mill-on-liberty

RENAISSANCE PUBLISHERS PRIVATE LIMITED 15, Bankim Chatterjee Street (2nd floor), Kolkata: 700 073, Mobile: 9831261725 NEW FROM RENAISSANCE

By SIBNARAYAN RAY Between Renaissance and Revolution-Selected Essays: Vol. I In Freedom’s Quest: A Study of the Life and Works of M. N. Roy: Vol. Ill Part-1 Against the Current

By M. N. ROY Science and Superstition

H.C.350.00 H.C.250.00 H.C.350.00 H.C.125.00

AWAITED OUTSTANDING PUBLICATIONS

By RABINDRANATH TAGORE & M. N. ROY Nationalism

By M. N. ROY The Intellectual Roots of Modern Civilization The Russian Revolution The Tragedy of Communism From the Communist Manifesto To Radical Humanism Humanism, Revivalism and the Indian Heritage

By SIVANATH SASTRI A History of The Renaissance in Bengal—Ramtanu Lahiri: Brahman & Reformer

By SIBNARAYAN RAY Gandhi, Gandhism and Our Times (Edited) The Mask and The Face (Jointly Edited with Marian Maddern) Sane Voices for a Disoriented Generation (Edited) From the Broken Nest to Visvabharati The Spirit of the Renaissance Ripeness is All

By ELLEN ROY From the Absurdity to Creative Rationalism

By V. M. TARKUNDE Voice of A Great Sentinel

By SWARAJ SENGUPTA Reflections Science, Society and Secular Humanism

By DEBALINA BANDOPADHYAY The Woman-Question and Victorian Novel

13

H.C.150.00 H.C.150.00 P.B.140.00 H.C.180.00 P.B.100.00 H.C.140.00 P.B. 140.00 H.C.180.00 H.C.200.00 H.C.200.00 P.B. 140.00 P.B.120.00 P.B.150.00 P.B. 125.00 P.B. 90.00 H.C.175.00 H.C 150.00 H.C. 125.00 H.C. 150.00

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

DECEMBER 2009 extensively, books and in journals and magazines. He was awarded a Medal of Merit for his contribution to the cause of social security by the International Social Security Association in the year 2000. Thus, the following article that comes in a series in this and the coming issues of RH is loaded with his first hand experience and labour in making all out efforts in the field of social security. ssanantha@yahoo.com ]

Humanist Approach to Social Security

R.K.A. Subrahmanya

[Sri R.K.A.Subrahmanya, a post graduate in economics joined the Indian Audit and Accounts Service after passing the IAS and Central Services Combined Competitive Examination in 1950 He was Accountant General in Assam Orissa, Tamilnadu and Kerala.He was appointed Addl Secretary in the Union Ministry of Labor in 1979. He was Chairman of the Central Board of Trustees of the EPFO, the Standing Committee of the ESIC and the Central Board of Workers Education for some time. He represented the Government of India in the International Labor Conferences held in Geneva for four years out of which he was elected as Chairman of Conference Committees, including the one on Social Dimensions of Industrialisation in three consecutive years. He was a member of a committee set up by the ILO for studying the future of social security in developing countries. He was a member of the Bureau (governing body) of the International Social Security Association, (an association of social security institutions such as the ESIC and the EPFO).

After retiring from service in 1984 he was Director General, Gandhi Labor Institute, Ahmedabad for some time before he was appointed as a Member of the A.P.Administrative Tribunal in Hyderabad. After his term in the Tribunal ended he joined the National Labor Law Association where he was the Coordinator of the Research Project called Simplification Rationalisation and Consolidation of Labor Laws and was largely responsible for the production of the book India Labor Code 1994. The Social Security Association of India was formed in 1991 and he has been the Secretary General of the Association since then. In this capacity he has conducted several seminars symposia workshops and training programmes on social security and written

—III— Water crisis: is one of the basic needs of man. It is Water required for a variety of purposes, mainly for drinking, for cooking, for sanitation etc. The Government of India has laid down the following norms for supply of water: 40 litres per capita per day (lpcd) for humans to meet the following requirements: Purpose Quantity (LPCD) Drinking 3 Cooking 5 Bathing 15 Washing utensils & house 7 Ablution 10 With normal output of 12 litres per minute, one hand-pump or stand-post is estimated for every 250 persons.

In case of an independent habitation/hamlet/Wadi/Tola/Majra/Mohra etc, if their population is less than 250 persons and there is no potable water source within its location, one source may be provided. A rural habitation not having any safe water source with a permanently settled population of 20 households or 100 persons, whichever is more, is taken as the unit for coverage with funds under the ARWSP. However, the State Government could cover any habitation regardless of its size/population/number of households with funds under State Plan.

(A ‘Habitation’ is a locality within a village where a cluster of families reside. The total population should be 100 or more for consideration for coverage under the rural water supply norms laid down by the Department

14

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

DECEMBER 2009

(Section 2). It is generally assumed that around 20 families reside in a habitation. Average number of persons in a family is taken as 5. In case of hilly areas, a habitation may have a population, which is less than 100.) The government has not been able to supply water as per these norms.

The Government of India introduced a scheme for supplying water in rural areas known as Accelerated Rural Water Supply Programme in the year 1972-73.

This scheme was renamed as Rajiv Gandhi National Drinking Water Mission in 1991-92. In the year 1999 Department of Drinking Water Supply was formed to give an impetus to the scheme. The Department initiated several projects to augment the supply of water. Later these initiatives took the form Swajaladhara programme in 2002-03.

It has been reported that an investment of about Rs.72, 600 crore has been made from the beginning of the planned era of development in rural water supply sector.

This investment has helped to create assets of over 41.55 lakh hand pumps, around 15.77 lakh public stand posts around 1.60 lakh mini piped water supply schemes and 45 000 multi village schemes in the country under the Rural Water Supply Programme.

According to the Eleventh Five Year plan: “The status of provisions of water and sanitation has improved slowly. According to the Census 1991, 55.54% of the rural population had access to an improved water source. As on 1 April, 2007, out of a total 1507349 rural habitations in the country, 74.39% (1121366 habitations) are fully covered, and 14.64% (220165 habitations) are partly covered. Further present estimates show that out of the 2.17 lakh water quality affected habitations as on 1.4.2005, about 70,000 habitations have since been addressed for providing safe drinking water. Also from the reported coverage, there are slippages in the prescribed supply level, reducing the per capita availability due to a variety of reasons.

“Water supply in urban areas is also far from satisfactory. As on 31 March 2004, about 91% of the urban population has got access to water supply facilities. However, this access does not ensure adequacy and equitable distribution, and the per capita availability is not as per norms in many areas. Average access to drinking water is highest in Class I towns (73%, followed by class II towns (63%) and other towns

15

(58%). Poor people in slums and squatter settlements are generally deprived of these basic amenities.

“The quantity of urban water supply is also poor. Water is supplied only for few hours of the day that leads to a lot of waste as taps are kept open and water I stored not all of which is used. This is so, despite the fact that per capita availability of water in cities like Delhi exceeds that in Paris where water is supplied round the clock.”

“Habitations that are covered in the earlier years slip back to not covered or partially covered status due to reasons such as sources going dry or lowering of groundwater, sources which are quality affected, systems working below their capacity due to poor O&M and normal depreciation. Increasing population leading to emergence of new habitations also increase the number of unserved habitations.

“Sustainability of the Rural Water Supply Programme has emerged as major issue and the Eleventh Plan aims at arresting the slip backs. The rate of habitation slippages from fully covered to partially covered and partially covered to not covered is increasing. In addition to this the increase in the number of quality affected habitations that are dependent on ground water source is adding to these slippages.…

“There are about 2.17 lakh quality affected habitations in the country with more than half of the habitations affected with excess iron, (118088) nitrate (13958) arsenic (5029) in that order. There are about 25000 habitations affected with multiple problems. About 66 million population is at risk due to excess fluoride in 200 districts of 17 States. Arsenic contamination is widespread in West Bengal and it is now seen in Bihar, eastern UP and Assam. The hand pump attached de-fluoridation and iron removal plants have failed due to inappropriate technology unsuited to community perceptions and their involvement. Desalination plants have also met a similar fate due to lapses at various levels starting with planning to post implementation maintenance.”

Thus the current water supply situation may be described briefly as follows: Nearly 15% of the habitations are yet to be covered by the schemes, 15% more habitations covered partially need to be fully covered; many of the habitations fully or partially covered have slipped back to the condition of non-coverage or partial coverage. The quantity of water

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

DECEMBER 2009

supplied is not adequate and the quality of water supplied leaves much to be desired.

What is the result?

According to the World Health Organisation “While access to drinking water in India has increased over the past decade, the tremendous adverse impact of unsafe water on health continues. The World Bank estimates 21% of communicable diseases in India are water related. Of these diseases, diarrhoea alone killed over 700,000 Indians in 1999 (estimated) – over 1,600 deaths each day. The highest mortality from diarrhoea is in children under the age of five, highlighting an urgent need for focused interventions to prevent diarrhoeal disease in this age group.

Despite investments in water and sanitation infrastructure, many low-income communities in India and other developing countries continue to lack access to safe drinking water. Regardless of the initial water quality, widespread unhygienic practices during water collection and storage, poor hand washing and limited access to sanitation facilities perpetuate the transmission of diarrhoea-causing germs through the faecal-oral route.”

The Planning Commission in the National Human Development Report 2001, stated: “Millions of people in the country suffer from water borne diseases on account of lack of access to safe drinking water. It is the poor who suffer from higher prevalence of disease as compared to the rich studies undertaken in many metropolitan cities show a higher rate of diseases and longer duration per illness due to poor quality of drinking water supply in the slum areas.”

According to the UNDP’s Human Development Report for 2006, which focuses on access to water and sanitation, India holds the 126th position among 177 countries for which information has been collected.

One of the Millenium Development Goals to be achieved by the year 2015 is that the number of people without safe access to water should be cut by half. It appears that the country has no hope of reaching the Millennium Development Goal for access to safe drinking water and sanitation if it continues at this pace.

The only consolation is that India is not alone in this situation.

According the Secretary General of the United Nations:

“Every twenty seconds a child dies from diseases associated with a lack of clean water. That adds up to an unconscionable 1.5 million young lives cut short each year. More than two and a half billion people in the world live in the most abysmal standards of hygiene and sanitation. Helping them would do more than reduce the death toll; it would serve to protect the environment, alleviate poverty and promote development. That is because water underpins so much of the work we do in these areas.

Water is essential for survival. Unlike oil there are no substitutes for water. But today fresh water resources are stretched thin. Population growth will make the problem worse. So will climate change! As the global economy grows, so will its thirst.”

According to the WHO 1.1 billion people or 18 percent of the world population, lack access to safe drinking water, 2.6 billion people or 42 percent lack access to basic sanitation. Water related diseases account for 80 percent of illnesses and deaths in developing countries.

By 2025, two thirds of the world population will lack clean and safe drinking water. Thirty one countries including India face water stress and scarcity.

It has been reported that recent research published in the scientific journal Nature shows that ground water supplies in northern India are depleting at a frightening rate. From August 2002 to October 2008, ground water loss was an astounding 109cu. km or twice the capacity of the largest surface water reservoir in the country. The Ministry of Environment and Forests agrees that “ground water reserves are becoming more and more depleted even as surface water sources become too polluted for human use.” It is apprehended that if the depletion of ground water sources continues at the current rate India will face a water shortage–and a subsequent food shortage-of staggering proportions.

It would thus appear that the water supply situation in India is by all accounts grim. Unless the situation changes for the better in the near future the Indian people will face acute distress due to water scarcity.

References: 1. National Human Development Report 2001 2. The Hindu 3. Mint

16

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

DECEMBER 2009

Current Affairs:

Balraj Puri

Kashmir’s Azadi sans Freedom [Mr. Balraj Puri is an authority on Jammu and Kashmir Affairs. He is Director, Institute of Jammu and Kashmir Affairs, Karan Nagar, Jammu-180005 Ph.no. 01912542687,09419102055 Www.humanrightsjournal.com] of “we want Azadi” is often raised Thein slogan popular demonstrations whatever be the issue. Azadi is Urdu translation of independence and freedom, which sometime contradict each other. The question is: do people need independence; if it denies them freedom has never been debated in Kashmir.

When Sheikh Abdullah, the most popular leader Kashmir ever produced, assumed power after the state’s accession to India and end of Dogra rule he hailed it as Azadi of Kashmir after four centuries of slavery, having been ruled by Mughal, Afghan, Sikh and Dogra rulers.

People enthusiastically celebrated the Kashmiri rule, as if the Sheikh was their own king.

However, neither the ruler nor the people bothered about freedom. No dissenting voice was tolerated. The system was so regimented that the office bearers of the ruling National Conference were appointed as government officers and vice versa. The Sheikh dismissed my suggestion that government officer should not hold any office in the party by citing how successful the system was working in the Soviet Union, then his ideal.

I showed a copy of an order by the Deputy Commissioner of Doda dismissing tehsil committee of Kishtwar National Conference and appointing a new committee to the Prime Minister Nehru. I asked “Can

17

such a regimented state remain a part of a democratic India”? He disapproved the practice but added “Our entire Kashmir policy revolves around the personality of Sheikh Abdullah. We cannot afford to oppose him.”

Gradually, discontent started brewing in the State, which was bound to grow even if it was ruled by angels. As all outlets of discontent were blocked, it sought a secessionist outlet. GM Karra, a legendary leader of the Quit Kashmir movement against the Dogra monarchy in 1946 who was, for some reason, sidelined by the new government, in sheer desperation, raised the slogan in favour of Pakistan in June 1953 as leader of the newly formed party, People’s Conference. In Jammu, discontent took the form of an agitation sponsored by Jana Sangh for “full integration” of the state. The Sheikh, to steal thunder of Karra and provoked by Jammu agitation started making anti-India noises.

Many international forces also played a role in aggravating difference between Nehru and the Sheikh, leading to dismissal and arrest of the latter in August 1953. I was one of the first persons outside the Valley to mobilize a campain against this action of the Government of India. Nehru asked me “Weren’t you critic of the Sheikh”? I replied that “I was a critic because he was a not a democrat. But I am opposed to his removal in an undemocratic way. In any case, if my advice had been heeded in time, the present step would not have been necessary. Moreover, he has been replaced by a ruler who is no less authoritarian and far more corrupt.” Nehru replied, “Unfortunately, Kashmir politics revolves around personalities.”

In 1954, I was able to persuade socialist leaders to set up a pro-India opposition party in the State. I argued with Nehru that if it was done, anti-government sentiments might not become anti-India. He warned me that “for the sake of gaining four annas, you might lose ten rupees.” I submitted that my game was for four annas not at the cost of ten rupees. He did not agree the experiment was ruthlessly crushed. When Praja Socialist Party president Asoka Mehta, along with other national and state leaders reached Srinagar to inaugurate the state unit of the party, they were beaten in Lal Chowk in bright day light.

The first effective experiment of two-party system in Kashmir Valley was made in 1977, when Sheikh Abdullah again came to power and Janata Party, the ruling party at the Centre, contested the Assembly election as an opposition party. The revived National

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

DECEMBER 2009

Conference won handsomely. But it demonstrated, for the first time, that loyalty to India and to the Government of India was not synonymous. Moreover, all anti-India and anti-government parties including Karra and Jana Sangh had rallied round a pro-India secular opposition party.

The practice did not continue for long. In 1984, Farooq Abdullah, who had succeeded his father and won the subsequent elections, was dismissed allegedly for hobnobbing with the opposition parties of India. He continued in opposition, and provided a pro-India outlet to anti-government sentiments. But by 1986, he lost patience and formed a coalition government with the Congress. Till then people opposed to the State government supported the Congress and those opposed to the Central government supported the National Conference, leaving no room for an anti-India party. But as both outlets were closed, particularly because 1987 election was rigged, it eventually sought a secessionist outlet, supported by militants from Pakistan.

The lesson from the recent history of Kashmir is that removal or reduction of outside authority over the State may actually lead to an authoritarian regime. This is a lesson also for those who are demanding Independence, Autonomy or Self-rule for the State. For if jurisdiction of federal autonomous institutions like the Supreme Court, Auditor and Comptroller General and the Election Commission is withdrawn from the State, without corresponding autonomous state institutions, it will lead to an authoritarian regime and it will remove checks over the Union government from interfering in the affairs of

the State. It is worth remembering that if jurisdiction of the Supreme Court had been extended to the state, there was no law in India in 1953 under which Sheikh Abdullah could be dismissed and arrested.

Thus champions of Independence, Autonomy and Self-rule must first think out and publicly debate what measures they propose to ensure freedom to the people in case they achieve their objective.

Moreover, the Kashmiri leaders have to decide whether they are concerned with the Valley or the whole State.

For ensuring unity of the State, a federal decentralized system is a necessity. The decision jointly announced by Nehru and Abdullah in July 1952 for granting Regional Autonomy as proposed by me and a similar decision by the State People’s Convention, convened by Sheikh Abdullah in 1968 as leader of the Plebiscite Front for an internal constitution of the state, drafted by me and unanimously approved by all the participants who included Plebisciste Front, Jamat-e-Islami, Mirwaiz Farooq’s Awami Action Committee, Karra’s People’s Conference and personalities like Maulana Massoodi, PN Bazaz and Shamim. These agreed proposals provided for regional autonomy and further devolution of power at district, block and panchayat levels. This could be a basis for evolving a composite and harmonious personality of as diverse a state as J&K. Such a set up is a first step to ensure democratic rights to the people and unity of the state which alone can aspire for a satisfactory status externally. A common inter-regional party can contribute to reconciling regional aspirations and prevent regional tensions.

Letter to the Editor regarding NOVEMBER 2009 ISSUE Dear Madam, I have particularly liked the article HUMAN PSYCHE: SOUL OR MIND? Madam, please inform me about your 10th December 2009 Human Rights Day Programme. Our organization i.e. Shree Yogkshem Foundation for Human Dignity will arrange grant function on this day at Ahmedabad city.

Thanking you and good wishes to your entire team.

Atul K. Raval

18

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

DECEMBER 2009

Political History of Andhra Pradesh

IRI/IRHA Member’s Section:

Bengal TillMatharam

Innaiah Narisetti M.N. Roy opined that politics should be studied systematically and history must be written in a scientific manner. Following both these principles suggested by M.N. Roy Dr Narisetti Innaiah, chairman of Center for Inquiry India, has come out with a scientific study of the political history of Andhra Pradesh in the form of a book “Political History Of Andhra Pradesh”. This book with 300 pages covers 100 years of contemporary events commencing from pre-independence days and concludes with 2009 emergence of Mr. K. Rosaiah as Chief Minister. This book narrates how Andhra Pradesh gained importance with the visit of two presidents from USA, namely Bill Clinton and George Bush. Mr. Bill Gates too visited. This happened due to prominence given to high technology. Political parties and their power games, constant defections, hereditary power sharing, and innumerable regional developments, all these aspects are traced in this book. Naxalite movement since 1969 and two turbulent agitations for separate state for Telengana have also been given a panoramic view. How Congress and Telugu Desam parties ruled the state while all other parties remained in opposition and then N.T. Rama Rao dislodged Congress party within 9 months during early 1980s and established name for the state in Delhi circles is also discussed in it. CFI India brought out this volume as model study. It is distributed by Akshara. Chapters are divided according to the rule of chief ministers. No sides are taken and the whole presentation is critical and objective. It will be good addition to the institutions, students, libraries. This book is being serialized in the RH, November 2009 onwards.

19

was divided and the Vande movement started, Andhra remained inert. Once inspired, agitations led to several arrests. The Rightists did not appreciate such actions.

The disagreement between the Rightists and Leftists surfaced at the Surat Congress session.

In 1907, the Surat Congress session was attended by Gadicharla Hari Sarvothama Rao, Kopalle Hanumantha Rao, Ganti Lakshmanna, Tanguturi Prakasam, Peddibhotla Veeraiah and Peri Narayana Murthy who supported the Leftists.

At the Surat congress, Tilak, Aravind Ghosh and Lala Lajpath Rai led the Leftists against Rosh Bihari Ghosh, Surendernath Banerjee and Firoz Shah Mehta. A bitter fight ensued between the Rightists, who consented to the British reforms, and the Leftists, who wanted to go ahead with the Swadeshi Movement. After this, the Congress was divided. The Congress Rightists remained passive for nearly a decade.

During the State level meetings in Madras (1907), Nyapathi Subba Rao Panthulu and B.N. Sharma emerged as Rightists whereas K. Sreenivasa Rao and Chilakamarthi Lakshmi Narasimha Rao established themselves as Leftists. The same kind of division swept all the cities in Andhra. Meetings took place in Vizag, Nandigama and Tenali. V.S. Sreenivasa Sastry formed District Level Rightists’ Associations in Krishna, Guntur and Godavari. They were condemned by the Left-oriented papers like Andhra Kesari, Navayuga and Krishna Patrika. Pattabhi Seetha Ramaiah, Kopalle Hunumantha Rao and Narahari Jogaiah expressed their desire for the unity of both the groups.

The Rightist Congress meetings (1908) in Madras were attended by 116 members. Eighteen of them found place in the decision making body. Prakasam was present at the meetings.

K. Pera Raju, V.V. Jogaiah and A.C. Parthasarathi Naidu spoke in the meeting. Later, the Vijayawada Association was founded by Ayyadevara Kaleswara Rao and Tadanki Venkata Narsayya Panthulu.

The exile of Lala Lajpath Rai was received by the Andhras with anger but the release of Bipin Chandra Pal

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

DECEMBER 2009

enthused them and they held meetings here and there to express their joy.

For the first time a National School was founded in Andhra by Nyapathi Subba Rao at Rajahmundry and a National College came up in Machilipatnam.

The articles published in Swarajya Patrika (1908) under the editorship of Bodi Narayana Rao were used as a pretext by the Government to arrest people. One Mr. Sarkar from Calcutta had already met Ayyadevara Kaleswara Rao, Hari Sarvothama Rao, Kaseenadhuni Veeramallayya, Kalapatapu Subba Rao, Mutnuri Krishna Rao, Unnava Lakshmi Narayana, Gunneswara Rao Komarraju Lakshmana Rao and Achanta Lakshmi Pathi emphasized the need for manufacturing bombs for an armed struggle. Danthu Subbavadhani took this opportunity to bring pistols from Calcutta and distribute them. Except for one or two people however, no one dared to make bombs. The Government accused one L. Basavaiah, of distributing anti-Government pamphlets.

The Rightists and the Leftists passed resolutions about the Minto-Morley Reforms in 1908, each of them expressing their own viewpoints.

Separate constituencies were disagreeable to the Leftists but the Rightists welcomed the move.

Gadicharla Harisarvothama Rao and Bodi Narayana Rao were arrested on 13th July, 1908, but Pingali Lakshmi Narayana went underground in Pondicherry.

A.S. Krishna Rao led a 13-member representation from Andhra to the Lahore Congress Session in 1909.

The slogan of separate Andhra had been heard as early as 1909. The idea that Telugu language should have a special recognition had started after the Allahabad Congress session when Prakasam, Pattabhi, Mutnuri and Konda opposing the Mailapur Brahmin group’s predominance favoured a separate Andhra. This suggestion was opposed by Nyapathi Subba Rao and Macharla Ramachandra Rao as they were closely associated with the Mailapur Brahmin group.

This Mailapur Brahmin group of lawyers had their say in the assembly which only strengthened the ‘Separate Andhra’ movement. By 1917 the Mailapur group too differed with the British. Konda and Pattabhi joined Annie Besant’s Home Rule Movement and were paid for that. (Statement of affairs of the Home Rule League, 10th January, 1919 Theosophical Society Archives.)

Konda was elected to the Legislative Council for the first time. But from 1920 onwards, the separate Andhra movement received a setback due to Prakasam and Venkatappaiah’s groupism.

The Rightists held meetings at Kurnool, Guntur and Krishna districts during 1909-1910. ‘Desabhimani Patrika’ said that the Andhras should be united. Challa Seshagiri Rao wrote about the needs of the Andhras and the lack of recognition accorded to them. ‘Andhra’ was published by Jonnavithula Gurunadham from Guntur in 1908.

The ‘Youth Literary Association’ started functioning in Guntur. It was there that Nyapathi Subba Rao expressed, for the first time, the need to have a separate Andhra. It sounded strange to the people as he had earlier opposed such a move.

All the jobs in Andhra fell into the hands of Tamilians or Maharashtrians. A very negligible number of Andhras were in jobs here. When compared to the development facilities available in Tamilnadu, Andhra was lagging far behind. The Tamilians were everywhere, either as teachers or clerks. This made the educated Andhra youth stress the need for a separate State.

The Krishna-Guntur meetings of 1912 in Nidadavolu raised slogans for a separate Andhra which took Kurma Venkatareddy Naidu, Nyapathi Subba Rao and Valluri Surya Narayana by surprise. Unnava Lakshmi Narayana read the resolution and Chilakamarthi Lakshmi Narasimham seconded it.

Konda Venkatappaiah was noncommittal about it.

Eighty two Andhras including B.N. Sharma, D.V. Krishna Rao, C.Y. Chinthamani, G. Raghava Rao, Macherla Ramachandra Rao, A.S. Krishna Rao, V.V. Jogayya and Multuri Adinarayanayya attended the 1910 Allahabad Congress session.

In 1911, the Congress sessions were held in Calcutta where 72 Andhras participated. G. Sreenivasa Rao, Vavilala Venkateswarulu and V.V. Jogayya voiced their ideas there. Among the 16 members that attended the Karachi session, only A.S. Krishna Rao spoke.

The Congress had its session, in Madras at the beginning of the First World War in 1914. 256 Andhras attended it.

A.P. Pathro, K. Venkata Reddy Naidu, A.P. Parthasarathi Naidu, G. Kesava Pillai, K.R.V. Krishna Rao, A.S. Krishna Rao and C. Lakshmi Narasimham participated in the discussions.

20

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

DECEMBER 2009

352 Andhras went to the Calcutta Congress session in 1917. Nyapathi Subba Rao submitted the appeal for a separate Andhra to Annie Besant, the Chairman.

Pattabhi Seetha Ramaiah proposed the resolution.

Gandhiji and Annie Besant opposed the proposal but Bala Gangadhar Tilak was in favour of it. The resolution was passed.

Prakasam was present at the meeting. Only 20 members from Andhra could go to Delhi for the Congress session in 1918. The proposal by Chatti Narasimha Rao to call a State level meeting was agreeable to one and all. A committee was formed with Konda as the secretary and Vinjamuri Bhawanachari, Unnava Lakshmi Narayana, Challa Seshagiri Rao and Jonnavittula Gurunatham as members. It was resolved to hold the Andhra meeting at Bapatla.

The first Andhra meeting at Bapatla, in the summer of 1913, was attended by 800 members. Bayya Narasimheswara Sharma was in the chair. Mutnuri Adinarayanayya, Nyapathi Subba Rao Panthulu, Macherla Ramachandra Rao, Gutti Keshava Pillai spoke against the separate Andhra move. The resolution for a separate Andhra, presented by Vemavarapu Ramadasu Panthulu had to be adjourned.

Valluri Surya Narayana Rao supported the resolution. It was decided that the leaders should go round the State with the proposal. Ayyadevara Kaleswara Rao, Bhogaraju Pattabhi Seetharamaiah, Mutnuri Adinarayanayya, Chilakamarthi Lakshmi Narasimham, Mutnuri Krishna Rao and Unnava Lakshmi Narayana were also present at that meeting.

The resolution for a separate Andhra was postponed temporarily as per the appeal of Ganti Venkata Ramaiah and Mutnuri Adinarayana. Discussions for and against a separate Andhra began to find place in the newspapers.

The people from Rayalaseema and Nellore district opposed the proposal for ‘Separate Andhra’. The rest of the districts were for it.

Keshava Pillai, Amancherla Subbu Krishna Rao, Maidavolu Changaiah, Gopalaswami Mudaliar, Doraswami Ayyangar and Nyapathi Subba Rao were among the opponents. The big list of supporters comprised the influential people like Gadicherla Harisarvothama Rao, Konda Venkatappayya, Mutnuri Krishna Rao, Pattabhi Seetha Ramaiah, Valluri Suryanarayana Rao, S.V. Narasimha Rao, Viduri

21

Pitchaiah, K. Gundu Rao, Despandya Subba Rao, Hatti Siva Rao, Kolachelanu Sreenivasa Rao, Nemali Pattabhi Rama Rao, Bezwada Pattabhi Rama Reddy, Ongolu Venkata Rangaiah, Hatti Shankar Rao, C. Yanadi Reddy, Mahanandaiah and Narasinga Rao. After the Bapatla meetings, the Committee of Pattabhi, Valluri Suryanarayana, Mutnuri Krishna Rao, and Konda Venkatappayya undertook a tour of Rayalaseema to seek the support of the people in favour of separate Andhra. They gathered a consensus in the Cuddapah, Ananthapur, Penugonda, Gutti, Nandyal, Hindupur and the Chittoor meetings. But on the whole, Rayalaseema was not very much in favour of a separate Andhra.

Meanwhile, even at the district level meetings, a consensus was taken. In Rayalaseema and Nellore, people felt that they should not be in a hurry to implement the proposal. But Krishna, Guntur and Godavari districts felt the immediacy of a separate State.

The Second Andhra Mahasabha was organized in Vijayawada in 1914. Ayyadevara Kaleswara Rao, Ayyanki Venkata Ramanayya and Peddibhotla Veeraiah played a major role in it. Even in these meetings where 1,600 people participated, separate Andhra remained a controversial issue. The resolution was introduced by Mandha Suryanarayana and supported by Vemavarapu Ramadasu Panthulu.

Though A.S. Krishna Rao, N. Pattabhi Rama Rao were for its adjournment, the resolution for a separate Andhra was passed. Graduates from all over Andhra had to go outside the State for higher education and proximity prompted many to study in Madras. As all of them could not get admissions there, many had to go to far off universities which involved greater expense. As many as two thousand students were then studying in the Madras universities. Only a few of the remaining nine thousand graduates could afford to study in other states. The Andhra students were disappointed that they could not secure seats in professional and technical institutions.

All these grievances made the people desire a separate state. The fact that the separate Andhra movement was, at the outset, meant for only the educated classes should not be forgotten.

In 1915, the Andhra Maha Sabha took place in Nellore.

From the beginning, the people of Nellore were anti-separatists. Because of convenience, neighbourly feeling, business connections with Madras they did not

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

DECEMBER 2009

wish for separation. The Nellore meetings went on as though a separate state was not an issue at all at that time.

The people of Rayalaseema were distrustful of the credibility of the Circars, hence they were unwilling to join them for a separate Andhra. The Tamilians who were in various jobs in Rayalaseema influenced them better than their Telugu counterparts.

In the North, States were being formed on linguistic basis. Bengal and Bihar were divided according to the Language Formula. This division gave an incentive to the separate Andhra demand.

The Sindhis also sent out feelers for a separate State. A surprising event took place in the third Andhra Mahasabha of 1915 in Vizag. R. Panagal Raja (Rama Rayanim), who was till then a staunch supporter of the British not only chaired the session, but also posed a firm demand for Andhra State which in turn gave moral support to the other separatists. Speeches were made in Telugu. They wanted Telugu to be the medium of instruction in schools. The Telugu papers appreciated the proceedings of the meetings.

Throughout the year, meetings were held in all districts of Andhra. Till then, the Tamilians in Madras were very influential in the congress. There was a proposal in Guntur for a separate Andhra Congress Committee. The Congress Committee of Guntur with Patri Sreenivasa Rao as the first Chairman and Vishnubhotla Suryanarayana as Secretary came into being and provided a stepping stone for the Andhra Congress.

At the 1915 Congress Session in Bombay there were 178 members from Andhra out of whom 46 submitted an appeal for Separate Andhra under the leadership of Konda Venkatappayya. Pattabhi and K.R.V. Krishna Rao were present there. Polavaram Raja and K.R.V. Krishna Rao, as Reception Committee Presidents, arranged the 4th Andhra Maha Sabha at Kakinada in 1916. Macherla Ramachandra Rao presided over the meeting. The resolution for a separate Andhra after the 1st World War was presented by C.V.S. Narasimha Raju and was accepted.

A.P. Patro, K. Venkata Reddy Naidu, C.V.S. Narasimha Raju and K. Venkatappayya made speeches upon the resolution and asserted that Indians should be appointed as high army officials and also be admitted in Naval Training Schools. It was commonly felt that the Andhras living in Madras were not treated on equal footing with

the local people. Andhra Political Association and Andhra people’s Committee were started in April and May 1917 respectively. The people’s Committee was strengthened under the Chairmanship of B.N. Sharma with V. Ramadasu Panthulu and N. Guruswami Chetty as Vice – Presidents and V. Lakshminarayana and S. Venkatachalam Chetty as Secretaries.

The 5th Andhra Mahasabha was held on 1st June 1917 at Nellore. Inspite of the local stand against a separate State, the resolution was passed. Ongole Venkata Rangaiah was the Reception Committee Chairman and Konda Venkatappayya presided over the meeting.

The Congress, which was divided into Rightist and Leftist groups in 1907, came under a single banner again by 1916. The Leftists returned from prisons and exile and from underground. Bengal was once again united into a single State. The Muslims who were once the supporters of the British came closer to Congress.

The Congress Session of 1916 in Lucknow, witnessed the propagation of the slogan ‘Home Rule’ by Tilak and Annie Besant. Some of the Andhras became enthusiastic about Annie Besant’s Theosophical Society and opened its branches in some places.

Gadicharla took up the responsibility of Home Rule movement in Andhra. Branches of the Theosophical Society in Andhra were also used by him to carry on his work as the Secretary of the Home Rule League. He opened branches in Kakinada, Vijayawada, Machilipatnam and Guntur.

Annie Besant’s tour of Chittoor, Kakinada and Rajahmundry towns resulted in some Rightists (K.R.V. Krishna Rao, Mocherla Ramachandra Rao) joining the League. In a year’s time as many as 52 branches opened all over Andhra. National College was started in Madanapally to promote Annie Besant’s activities.

Several meetings were held in Godavari, Krishna, Ganjam and Guntur districts.

Andhra Mahasabha gave its support to the movement.

The Government brought pressure upon the students not to attend the league meetings. Telugu newspapers objected to the Government’s attitude. Funds were raised for the movement. Annie Besant’s arrest led to protest meetings in the cities of Andhra.

Some suggested a Satyagraha in favour of Annie Besant, but others felt it wise to keep quiet in view of the Montague-Chelmsford Reform Committee. These

22

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

DECEMBER 2009

controversies came up in the newspapers.

Andhra Patrika and Andhra Prakasika were anti-Satyagraha where as Desabhimani was for it. The need for Satyagraha was the content of the meeting at Rajahmundry, Guntur and Machilipatnam. E.N. Sharma, V.S. Sreenivasa Sastry, N. Subba Rao Panthulu, M. Ramachandra Rao Panthulu, P. Siva Rao, P. Venkatapathi Raju, V.P. Madhava Rao, Gollapudi Ramanayya, Chatti Narasimha Rao, P. Suryanarayana Rao and Sree Ram were led by Gadicharla to lend support to the Satyagraha. Annie Besant was arrested on 16th June, 1917 and released in September. She once again went round Andhra.

At a meeting of the Krishna District Congress on 26th January, 1918, it was decided to send Pattabhi to England to safeguard the Montague Reforms. The special feature of the Andhra Mahasabha on 31st March, 1918 in Vijayawada, under Bhupathi Raju Venkatapathi

Raju was the assent given by the Rayalaseema leaders for a separate Andhra.

Resolutions for the separate Andhra were being passed at Vijayawada, Vizag and Cuddapah. Tilak came forward with a substantial proposal at the Congress Session in Bombay that they should be willing to join the War if the Government accepted Home Rule. Konda Venkatappayya, Oruganti Venkatappayya and Ayyadevara Kaleswara Rao were the supporters of Tilak’s proposed move. There was bitter dissension over the Montegu-Chelmsford Reforms between two groups in Andhra Mahasabha in Guntur. One group led by B.N. Sharma presented a resolution welcoming the Reforms with certain modifications. The other group was for total rejection of the Reforms. 97 members voted in favour of the resolution and 76 against, and the resolution was passed.

—SUBSCRIPTION RATES— In SAARC Countries:

For one year-Rs. 180.00 For two years-Rs. 300.00 For three years-Rs. 400.00 Life subscription-Rs. 1500.00

In other Countries:

Annual subscription (Air Mail) $ 75.00 GBP 50.00

Note:

Direct transfer of subscription amount from abroad may be sent to SWIFT CODE Number CNRBINBBAMHB in the Current Account Number

0349201821034 at Canara Bank, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi, 1100014, India.

Cheques should be in favor of The Radical Humanist, For outstation cheques: Please add Rs. 25.00 to the total. Cheques and information regarding the money transfer from abroad may be Posted to: Mr. Narottam Vyas (Treasurer), Chamber No. 111, (Near Post Office) Supreme Court of India, New Delhi-110001 Contact phone number 91-11-23782836 (Chamber) 91-11-22712434 (Res.) 09811944600 (Mobile)

23

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

DECEMBER 2009

Teacher’s and Research Scholar’s Section: divided in following categories.

Adoption Laws in India

By Gomati Desai Introduction: is one of the solutions not only for Adoption the childless couples but also for homeless children. It is defined as a process by which people take a child not born to them and treat him as a member of the family.

Why should we adopt: There are lots of children – boys and girls, infants and older kids, healthy and needy children – available for adoption. Adoption is generally associated with couples unable to bear natural children. A couple unable to produce a child long after marriage is most often advised to contact an orphanage or a social institution for bringing a readymade child home. Now the view towards adoption is slowly changing worldwide.

Interestingly, not all couples that adopt are infertile.

Some of them do it simply because they love children, or they want to give additional company to their natural children or they want to serve the society through adoption. Let us take a look at some unconventional reasons for which people adopt children.

Why problems in adoption process arise in India: Sadly in India, this relationship is given only limited encouragement by law. There is no uniform adoption law in India. Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (HAMA) of 1956 allows only Hindus to adopt. Muslims, Parsees, Christians and Jews can only become legal guardians under Guardianship And Wards Act (GAWA) of 1890 which does not give any security to either the child or to the adoptive parents since guardianship can be challenged. Guardianship expires once the child attains the age of 18 years.

Religious Minorities cannot adopt legally in our country, but anyone from outside India can take Indian Children under GAWA and convert their guardianship into adoption under the laws of their respective countries.

But there are some legislation related to adoption that are

Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (HAMA) 1956 Guardians and Wards Act (GAWA) 1890 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000 Juvenile Justice Amendment Act 2006 Adoption under Hindu Law: Shastric Hindu law looked at adoption more as a sacramental than secular act. Some Judges think that the objective of adoption is two fold: 1) To secure the performance of one’s funeral rights 2) To preserve the continuance of ones lineage because it is believed that one who died without having a son would go to hell called poota and it was only a son who saved the father from going to poota. This was one of the reasons to have a son. Ancient Hindu Shastras recognized Dattaka and Kritrima as two types of sons.

In the Hindu Shastras, it was said that the adopted son should be a reflection of the natural son. Currently, the adoption under Hindu Law is governed by the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (HAMA) of 1956: Hindu adoption and Maintenance Act of 1956 provides for the adoption of Hindu Children only.

This act is applicable to any person who is a Hindu inclusive of Buddhism Jainism and Sikhism.

This Act does not apply to Muslims, Christians, Parsees and Jews.

A Hindu wife does not have the right of adoption. She has no right to adopt during her husbands life time even with his consent.

Hindu wife can adopt only after the death of Husband or if her marriage is dissolved or if the husband has renounced the world or if husband has ceased to be Hindu or if the husband is a person of unsound mind.

Hindu husband can adopt with the consent of his wife.

No Hindu can adopt a son or daughter if they already have a child of that sex.

There should be an age difference of 21 years between adoptive parents and adopted child whenever they are of opposite sex.

Valid adoption cannot be changed or cancelled.

All rights of biological parents should be replaced to the

24

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

DECEMBER 2009

adoptive parents.

Adopted child has right of collateral succession both on his adoptive mothers side and adoptive Fathers side.

Requirements of Valid adoption: In the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (HAMA) of 1956 no adoption is valid unless: The person adopting is lawfully capable of taking in adoption.

The person giving in adoption is lawfully capable of giving in adoption.

The person adopted is lawfully capable of being taken in adoption.

The adoption is completed by an actual giving and taking.

Who may adopt: Capacity of Male Hindu: A Male Hindu who is of sound mind and is a minor, has the capacity to take a son or daughter provided that if he has a wife living he shall not adopt except with the consent of his wife unless his wife completely and finally renounced the world or has ceased to be a Hindu, or has been declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be of unsound mind.

Capacity of female Hindu: Any female Hindu who is of sound mind, who is not a minor and who is not married or whose marriage has been dissolved or whose husband is dead or completely and finally renounced the world or has ceased to be Hindu or has been declared by a court to be unsound mind has a capacity to take son or daughter in adoption.

The Person can be adopted: No person can be adopted unless: He or she is a Hindu He or she has not already been adopted He or she has not completed the age of fifteen years Other conditions for valid adoption: If the adoption is of a son, the adoptive father or mother by whom the adoption is made must not have son, son’s son or son’s son’s son living at the time of adoption.

If the adoption is of daughter, the adoptive father or mother by whom the adoption is made must not have Hindu daughter or son’s daughter living at the time of adoption.

25

If the adoption is by a male and the person to be adopted is a female than the age difference between them must be 21 years.

If the adoption is by female and a person to be adopted is a male, than age difference between them should be 21 years.

Same child may not be adopted simultaneously by two or more parents.

The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890: Under this act, people belonging to the communities such as Muslim, Christians, Parsis and Jews and who wish to adopt can only take the guardianship of the child.

The statute does not deal with the adoption but it mainly deals with guardianship. The process makes the child a ward, not as adopted child.

This act confers only guardian child relationship. This relationship exists until child completes 21 years of age.

Juvenile Justice (care and Protection of children) Act, 2000: This Juvenile Justice Act Provides for the adoption of abandoned and abused children by people of all communities.

Sec 41 (3) of the JJA states that Juvenile justice boards shall be empowered to give children in adoption implying that adoptive powers are not automatic and state government must empower their respective justice board but no state govt. has notified empowerment of its JJBs on adoption matters .

Juvenile Justice Amendment Act 2006: Juvenile Justice Amendment act allows non-Hindus to adopt but there is hardly any awareness about 2006 amendment to Juvenile Justice Act. Secondly, amending the act was not enough there has to be more clarity about procedures and information how the law should be applied.

Instead of getting approval of higher courts like district court and high courts (in case of the inter-country adoption. Adoption should be done locally by child welfare committees and juvenile justice boards.

There are no rules or infrastructure in place nor is there clarity on related issues like whether the law will apply to Muslims also.

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

DECEMBER 2009

Juvenile Justice Amendment Act will apply to all Indians but it is not clear how this law would override the provisions of other personal laws.

Adoption laws of India for Foreign Nationals: Adoption of Indian children by foreign nationals or International Adoption is a controversial issue. In foreign countries there are innumerable cases of Indian Orphans being given secured and loving homes. But on the other hand some of the children have been used as domestic servants, beggars and even for prostitution.

In the matter of L K Pandey v Union of India SC has laid down certain guidelines that have to be followed in the case of foreign adoption in an attempt to safeguard the interests of the children.

Foreign Nationals adopt an Indian child under provisions of the Guardian And Wards Act, 1890. Indian Court will appoint the foreigner as the Childs guardian.

The foreign National will take the child to his country and adopt him or her as per laws of his country.

Adoption and Muslim Law: Adoption is neither being recommended nor recognized

by Muslim Law. Under Hanafi Law, a man may adopt heir when he leaves in living relative. But in other schools of Islamic Laws adoption was prohibited.

Goa’s Portuguese civil code and Adoption: Unearthing a racket of selling new born babies by reputed doctors in Goa has thrown light on altogether different issue, which is the prime cause of such illegal acts. Portuguese civil code does not allow legal adoptions.

As invention is mother of necessity, the gynecologists here invented a method of issuing legal birth certificates to the needy childless parents while handing over new born abandoned babies from their maternity homes, giving legal right to the child and his or her family.

Since whole deal needs to be kept top secret many reputed doctors also seized the opportunity to make money out of it, by selling these babies to the parents, who cannot have biological issue. On the other hand they are also charging heavy fees for deliveries of unwed mothers, while the maternity homes were taking care of the abandoned child later.

CARA: Adoptions are regulated by CARA (Central Adoption

Resource Authority). CARA pointed out some of the loopholes in Indian Adoption. CARA specifies the eligibility conditions, processing steps, documentation, costs, court processes, foster care conditions, issuance of birth certificates and post adoption follow ups.

Uniform Civil Code and Adoption: Article 44 of Constitution of India declares that state shall endeavor to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code through out the territory of India.

Over the years attempts to formulate a general law on adoption have failed on account of number of reasons.

Adoption Procedures: A Number of procedures have to be followed before a person can adopt a Child.

Parents approach Voluntary coordinating agency or child Welfare agency.

They register themselves at the agency.

Preliminary Interview with couple-Their aim for adoption, family background, status of marital life, scrutiny of applications and relevant documents.

Placement agency identifies the suitable child.

Home study report is prepared.

Prospective parents meet the identified children.

Doctor selected by parents medically screens the child.

Parents make final decision and file relevant papers through their lawyers.

Court hearing takes place. The court issues a decree and adoption is sealed.

Post adoption follow ups.

Lakshmikant Pandey v Union Of India: (AIR 1984 SC 480) SC held that since there is no Statutory Enactment in our country providing for adoption of a child by foreign parents or laying down the procedure which must be followed in such a case, resort is to have the provisions of Guardians And Wards Act 1890 for the purpose of facilitating such adoption.

SC also held that if it is not possible to provide children in India decent family life such as nutritive food, health care and education and lead a life of basic human dignity with stability and security, moral as well as material, there is no reason why such children should not be allowed to be given in adoption to foreign parents. Such adoption would be quite consistent with our

26

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

DECEMBER 2009

national policy on children because it would provide an opportunity to children, otherwise destitute, neglected or abandoned to lead a healthy life, without privation and suffering arising from poverty, ignorance, malnutrition and lack of sanitation and free from neglect and exploitation, where they would be able to release full potential of growth.

Concluding Remarks: Children constitute the basis of our society need special care and protection. Unfortunately, for one reason or another, they suffer in various ways.

In India millions of children are bound to live the life of orphans and destitutes. Today when any child is adopted we are proud of giving a decent homely life to the child.

But in the absence of the common adoption code for all community members, we cannot hope the expected

results. So now is the time to reassess our laws and regulations that deal with cases of intra-country and inter-country adoptions. Government cannot try and plug loopholes in one act by amending another.

Adoption law in India needs an amendment to bring in grater uniformity for all religions but it needs to be done more systematically and not just by amending Juvenile Justice act.

[Mrs. Gomati Desai Onsker started her teaching career in the year 2005 from G.R. Kare College of Law, Margao, Goa. Worked as a coordinator of LLB (Hon.) Course from 2006-2008. Joined V.M. Salgaocar College of Law, Miramar, Panaji, Goa in the year 2008. Areas of Interest are family Law and Women and Law. gomati_desai@yahoo.com ph. 9922415388 / 9822485388/0832 3292595]

SUBSCRIPTION FORM The Manager, The Radical Humanist

C/o Mr. Narottam Vyas (Treasurer) Chamber No. 111, (Near Post Office) Supreme Court of India New Delhi-110001 Dear Sir, I/We wish to be enrolled as subscriber/s for The Radical Humanist for a period of one year/two years/three years/life.

Name...........................................................................................................

Address........................................................................................................

Phone No.....................................................................................................

E-mail.........................................................................................................

Thanking you.

Yours faithfully,

27

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

DECEMBER 2009

Book Review Section:

Dipavali Sen [Ms. Dipavali Sen has been a student of Delhi School of Economics and Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics (Pune). She has taught at Visva Bharati University, Santiniketan, and various colleges of Delhi University. She is, at present, teaching at Sri Guru Gobind Singh College of Commerce, Delhi University.

She is a prolific writer and has written creative pieces and articles for children as well as adults, both in English and Bengali. Dipavali@gmail.com]

A Brave Attempt [The Great Betrayal, by Sirgapur Vidya Sagar Reddy, Navodaya Book House, Hyderabad, 1st published 1996, this 2nd edition 2009, hard cover, cover design Ramanajeevi, pp 396, price Rs 200.] bhayamkari. A little learning is a Alpavidya dangerous thing.

So at this stage of the advancement of the subject called Economics, authoring a treatise on Economics without any formal training in the subject – is rather dangerous.

The author’s authority is bound to be questioned, even if he is not dismissed outright as a fool or lunatic.

But Sirgapur Vidya Sagar Reddy has taken that risk, and come out with this book with the title The Great Betrayal (Is it real economics which is taught or only trade and commerce?)Reddy is a science student who later pursued law, and became a successful lawyer, practicing till 1990. Is this enough qualification to write about Economics, ‘real’ or otherwise? Most practicing (and preaching) economists of today would say, no. One must

pick up some formal education on this highly developed and specialized area of human knowledge before one gets critical about how it is being taught and applied.

But what about the economists of yester years? What about Adam Smith (to whom Reddy refers often), Malthus, and Marx himself? None of them were trained or taught as economists. The simple reason is that there was no subject called Economics then. The closest kin was Political Economy. Adam Smith was Professor of Moral Philosophy. Thomas Robert Malthus was a clergyman. And Karl Marx was a philosopher before he was anything more.

It was their original observations on the world around them that created the position they hold permanently in human history.

And so this book by Reddy should not be shoved aside simply because it is not by a professional.

The Book is in two parts. Book I has four parts and Book II has two.

Part I (of Book I) deals with the power that human being has to work and to create/produce. It also refers to money and cost but they are taken up in greater detail in part II (Book I) which also describes the banking system and multiplication of money. Part III ( Book I) deals with miscellaneous topics like Free Market, Population, education, Trade and Commerce, Poverty and even Television and Computers! Part IV (Book I) discusses the transition of society, the organization of community life and its requirements.

Part II of Book II covers areas like Health Care, crime, Social Security, Daily Life in the Village, Trade and Commerce. Part ii (Book II) takes up topics like Helping the Trading Community, The Purpose of Creating Wealth, Vested Interest, and Globalization. At the end there is a Conclusion.

What does the Conclusion say? What is the purport of the book?

It is not those in the government or the universities who are in charge of the economy but businessmen (capitalists).They have a vested interest in the economy that prevents it from working so as to serve the interests of the common people, especially the village people.

Misapplication of scientific developments has encouraged mass production and mechanization, creating poverty and unemployment. Development of

28

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

DECEMBER 2009

the banking system has strengthened the process.

Technological innovations (from the steam engine to the cell phone) have reduced jobs and raised tensions. The peaceful tenor of rural communities has been destroyed.

Even children have lost their childhood in being forced early in their lives to groom themselves for paying and so–called prestigious jobs.

Reddy therefore calls for a reduction of the control that the business (capitalist) class exerts on the economy and revival of the pride in simply earthy occupations like farming. The State, he feels, has a role to play in this process, and should take steps to undo the harm already done.

What steps? How to take them? How to reduce the stranglehold of one class on the others? Reddy does not have clear-cut answers. If he had, he would have got the Nobel Prize not only for Economics but also for Peace.

Nobody knows the answer to the problem humanity is in, and it would be absurd to expect any single human being to do so. The point is, does Reddy at least have a clue?

Yes, he has. It is going back to the village community. It had peace. It had dignity. It had no destitutes. It had no desperates.

But does it mean that human society should go back 200 years? Is it either possible or desirable?

Reddy was aware of this reaction to his ideas, and that is why, as he says, he delayed the publication of his book by a few years even after it was ready. But he must have felt convinced by his own self. For, he did publish it and we have it in our hands.

He says that it is not true that he wants to put the clock back. He is all for going forward. But it has to be along the right track – to a community life that is as of old but set in the future.

When Gandhiji set up the Sabarmati Ashram and Tagore the Santiniketan and Sriniketan, it is this idea that they were trying to put into practice.

In the wake of the recent Globalization, Sustainable Development is at least getting some attention. World leaders are being forced to acknowledge the worth of preserving ecological balance.

So Reddy’s solution is not an absurd or unrealistic one. It is quite in agreement with the thoughts of great minds. It can be a lifesaver for the world of tomorrow.

But amateurish statements and awkward use of terms cloud the genuine concern for the future of humanity that this book expresses. It provides scope for many to put this book down with a sarcastic smile and the quote on ‘a little learning’.

Yes, there is an Errata but it is not sufficient.

To capture the attention of readers abroad, it needs to be checked for grammar and edited by someone trained in the discipline of economics. Economics, in fact, has its own grammar (just like Law does, I am sure). A thorough editing by a professional economist who empathizes with Reddy is what the book requires for its 3rd edition.

And Reddy’s brave attempt certainly deserves to go into a third edition.

The Radical Humanist—Rates Of Advertisement/InsertionJournal Size:18cm x 24cm-Print Area:15cm x 20cm Ordinary Second Back Cover Rs. 2,500 Last Cover

Rs. 3,000

Special Rs. 3,000 Rs. 2,500

Quarter page

Rs. 900

nd

For One Year 2 Back Cover Rs. 20,000 Rs. 30,000 Last Cover

Rs. 25,000

Ordinary Page: Full Page Rs. 15,000 Quarter Page Rs.6,000

Special

Rs. 2,500

Rs. 3,000

Half Page

Rs. 1,000

Rs. 3,500

Ordinary Page: Full Page Rs. 2,000 Rs. 600

Ordinary Third Back Cover

rd

3 Back Cover

Rs. 20,000

Rs. 1,500 Rs. 30,000

Rs. 30,000 Rs. 20,000 Rs. 9,000

Half Page

29

Rs. 10,000

Rs. 15,000

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

DECEMBER 2009

Remembering Professor Iqbal Ansari Iqbal Ahmad Ansari, a veteran civil Professor liberties’ activist and national council

member of PUCL left for his heavenly abode on 13th Oct. 2009 and left a big gap in the field of struggle for human rights which is difficult to be filled. Prof. Ansari was a tireless defender of citizens’ rights and one of the most firm defenders of civil liberties in India.

Throughout his life, he remained deeply committed to the cause of civil liberties and fearlessly took stands on various issues especially communalism and religious freedom. Having completed his education he joined the Department of English; AMU, Aligarh and retired from there in 1995.He shifted his activities from the filed of literature to protection of human rights and upholding rule of law when Emergency was imposed in India in 1975. From that time onwards there was no looking back.

Prof. Iqbal Ansari was one of the top ranking standardbearers of Human rights movement in India. He was the founder secretary of Minorities Council of India. He held the designation up to his death. He was chief editor of monthly magazine Human Rights Today. He was connected with a number of prominent human rights organizations and The Institute of Objective Studies, New Delhi [IOS]. He would be always remembered for his life long services which he rendered in the filed of protection of human rights and fights for the sufferers of government excesses. He was given the prestigious Human Rights Award in 2007 by ‘JNU Centre for Human Rights Teaching and Research’.

He painstakingly studied and prepared investigative reports of the communal riots of Jabalpur (1961), Ahmedabad (1969), Aligarh (1978 & 1990) and Post Babri Masjid Demolition disturbances (1992-93). He was of the firm opinion that the institutions responsible for maintaining rule of law in the country, especially police and district administration have become

subservient bodies of rulers which have been working for the satisfaction of their political bosses. He prepared a report for National Minorities Commission on ‘Communal riots, their prevention and control’.

He played a constructive role in promoting Hindu-Muslim understanding and arranged several dialogues for resolving contentious issues like protection of cow, religious conversion, Ayodhya etc.

He also worked towards dialogue on inter community issues, Kashmir etc.

He was a genuine scholar and original researcher. Three volumes of his original work on Minorities and Muslims have been published by IOS and fourth one is in press.

Justice V R Krishna Aiyer has written the foreword to this fourth volume. A. G. Noorani regards this work to be of international academic and research standard.

Eminent legal expert Soli Sorabji views it as a valuable addition to classical legal literature. His monumental work “Muslim Situation in India” was written in 1989.

Its eighth volume was printed in 1995. Another important work which earned accolades for him is his book Political Representation of Muslims in India 1952 – 2004. It provides useful and rare data on the topic.

In short, Prof. Iqbal Ahmad Ansari lived and died for the cause of promotion of human rights, protection of human dignity and for providing relief to the down trodden, the victims of state apathy and social injustice.

He would be remembered for long as a fighter for human rights, a research scholar of high academic standard and untiring activist and devoted human being who constantly worked to promote justice and uphold rule of law. He was a crusader who fought valiantly for justice, fair play and protection of human rights. Today, he is no me more with us but his memory and legacy in terms of work done by him will continue to inspire us in the struggle for the establishment of a just and equitable world.

Prof. K.A. Siddique Hassan, Secretary, Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR)

Dear Friends, Please email your article at rheditor@gmail.com and attach a passport size photograph to it. Or post it at C-8 Defence Colony, Meerut, 250001, U.P., India with a small introduction about yourself, if you are sending your write-up for the first time to us. Feel free to contact me at 91-9719333011 for any other querry.—Rekha Saraswat

30

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

DECEMBER 2009

Collected Works of Raojibhai Patel A book of collected works of Raojibhai C. Patel, a Radical Humanist has been complied

by Shri Bipin Shroff, himself a Radical Humanist and editor of Vaishvik Manavvad, a Gujarati monthly, which is dedicated to Radical Humanism and is published since the last 20 yrs.

It is a compilation of Prof. Patel’s articles and letters with a foreword by Lord Bhikhu Parekh.

Lord Parekh happens to be one of Prof. Patel’s young recruits in the Renaissance Club of students and colleagues that he had formed while he was in the MS University of Baroda.

The book’s details may be read at: http://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=2835d5299a&view=att&th=124b181f2893bbf8

31

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

DECEMBER 2009

Humanist News Section: I PUCL’s National Council Meeting and National Convention held at Ranchi, Jharkhand: two-day National Council Meeting and ANational Convention of PUCL was held at the Convention Hall, MLAs’ Residential Complex, Ranchi, Jharkhand on 31st October, and 1st November, 2009. More than 180 delegates from all over the country participated in the National Convention.

The delegates discussed at length the human rights situation in the country, problems faced by various State Branches, the issues before them and ways and means of reaching more and more people. The issue of violence and use of greater force, including the threat of using the personnel of the armed forces of the country by the Union Home Minister, against the Naxalites/Maoists, was discussed in great detail. The delegates were of the opinion that hostilities must stop immediately and unconditional talks held to resolve the crisis which affects the lives of the poorest tribal people of Jharkhand, Chhatisgarh, Orissa and other States. The Convention was unanimous in its opinion that the use of armed forces, including the air force, against its own citizens must not be even thought of as it would prove counter productive and only give rise to further alienation and discontent among the tribal population of the affected areas. Instead, the Central as well as the State governments must address the issues of development, unemployment, poverty, lack of adequate educational and health facilities in these areas on urgent basis and address the root causes which forced people of these areas to resort to armed struggle against the State.

On the issue of land acquisition, the Convention was unanimous that land should be acquired, and that too for public purposes only and not to be handed over to the Multi-National Corporations (MNCs) or the big corporate houses for their profit-making, with the prior consent of the stake holders, only after complete rehabilitation of the affected people, giving them proper share in the benefits which would accrue from such acquisition after setting up heavy industry, power stations or other projects on the acquired land.

The Convention also discussed the misuse of draconian laws against human rights defenders, implicating them in false and fabricated cases, as has happened in the cases of Dr. Binayak Sen, TG Ajay and a host of other social and human rights workers. The Convention was unanimous in its opinion that this must stop immediately. The Convention also passed many resolutions on other burning issues facing the country today, including the issue of terrorism. The Convention felt that innocent citizens must not be made victims of anti-terror laws and the guilty should be dealt with in accordance with the law of the land. Extra judicial killings must stop as they went against the rule of law in the country. The Convention also discussed at length the issue of social and communal harmony in the country which could ensure peace and all-inclusive development in the country.

The Convention appreciated the services of the outgoing office-bearers and elected the following office bearers: Prof Prabhakar Sinha, President, Dr. Binayak Sen, Ravi Kiran Jain, Ms. Sudha Ramalingam, Subroto Bhattacharjee and Sanjay Parikh, Vice-Presidents, Pushkar Raj, General Secretary, D. Jagannathan and S.A.A. Pinto, Treasurers and Chittaranjan Singh, Ms Kavita Srivastava, V. Suresh and Mahi Pal Singh, Secretaries.

News by Mahi Pal Singh II Janhastakshep, Campaign Against Fascist Designs, People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and People’s Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR) held a public meeting “No to use of Army & Air Force Against Naxalites” on the 24th October, 2009 (Saturday) at Constitution Club, New Delhi. meeting was attended by a wide spectrum Theof people from political parties, intellectuals and political activists such as Mr. Surendra Mohan, Prof.

Manoranjan Mohanty, Shamshul Islam and many others.

Many attendees had to sit at the aisles because of the large number of people who had come to attend.

Noted poet Pankaj Singh gave the introductory note, he emphasized on how the state and ruling parties are

32

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

DECEMBER 2009

seriously attempting to distort our perceptions and notions in labeling the growing Naxal movement as “the single biggest threat to internal security”. The reality it is that it is the failure of the state and governance in India which are the biggest threat to the life and livelihood of millions and the army and air force are wrongly being used as means to resolve issues of bad governance.

Professor Randhir Singh emphasized, that those who condemn violence do not only condemn excesses but also demand an acceptance of the qualities of the current state. “Radical politics and extra parliamentary tools have to be emphasized, people have a right to choose their preferred method of resisting oppression. Today, the Maoists and Naxalites represent the dream for justice and a better future by those millions who have been marginalized by society and the ruling party’s plans to use the army to fight against them will be disastrous for the country”.

Retd. Admiral Tahiliani, former Chief of Naval Staff was adamant that The Army, Air Force and Navy must never be used against its own people and the government must take remedial measures to create a more equitable society with responsible governance. Denial of land rights to Tribal people, corruption and the failure of existing legal means of justice are solely responsible for growing discontent and violence.

Aparna, Secretary Delhi State Committee CPI(ML) New Democracy spoke on how Chidambaram and Manmohan Singh are wanting to unilaterally hand over India’s mineral wealth and resources for exploitation by foreign MNCs and big corporate houses. Aparna called upon the rest of India to also fulfill their “patriotic duty” in resisting such nefarious designs and also to beware of leaders like Chidambaram and Manmohan Singh who are attempting to obfuscate issues relating to allocation of resources within distorted, biased debates about ‘violence and non-violence’.

D. Raja, National Secretary CPI spoke on behalf of the CPI and A.B. Bardhan. He stated that the CPI was the first to give a strong No! to using the armed forces against its own people and also emphasized on the need to build a united front against state violence. Several states have refused to earmark funds for the development of ST SC’s and he stressed that it is neglect by the government and its anti people policies which are

33

solely responsible for the alienating the tribal communities and growing violence.

G.N. Saibaba from RDF spoke about how this would not be the first time that the armed forces have been used by the state to oppress the people; in the 1950’s and 1960’s the army and air force was used in Telangana, and Mizoram and for decades the army has been used as an occupation army in Kashmir, Nagaland and Manipur.

The difference this time is because the army will be deployed in the hinterland of India, not allowing the ruling parties the privilege of using ‘divide and rule’ or the notion of ‘us and the other’ which used for a long time through creating false communal and ethnic divisions. He emphasized that such attempts to stamp out dissidence will inevitably back fire and further unite the people in their struggle against exploitation and state violence.

Himanshu from Vanvasi Chetna Ashram Chattisgarh made a passionate appeal to the intellectuals and the educated middle class to come out in open defense of the poorer people, especially the Adivasis. He was categorical that no amount of killings or threats will prevent the people from standing up against oppression until the question of equity has been completely resolved.

Noted Advocate Prashant Bhushan sent a written note strongly condemning the plans to use the Army and Air Force against the people and Prof K.R. Chaudhary from Hyderabad also spoke at the meeting condemning the same. At the end of the meeting a resolution was unanimously adopted opposing the use of the Army and Air Force against Naxalites.

PUCL JANHASTAKSHEP PUDR “No To Use Of Army & Air Force Against Naxalites” —A Resolution— ‘left wing extremism’ as the most Branding serious threat to internal security, the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh led Govt. is unleashing serious onslaught on certain areas of the country where

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

DECEMBER 2009

such forces are strong. Armed forces of the country are being pressed into this attack. Nearly one lakh Special Forces are being trained by the Army for the purpose.

Govt. spokesmen are obfuscating the role of the Army in this offensive. Rashtriya Rifles and ITBP are being thrown in. Air Force has been given permission for firing in “self-defense”. This last word is being added only to confuse the people. Where is the question of “self-defense” when Air Force is being asked to take part in offensive action? Air Force helicopters are being readied for attack and will carry special “Garuda” Air Force personnel who are being given combat role.

Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram is articulating the strategy of “capture, hold, develop” against areas where Naxalites, to begin with CPI (Maoist), are strong.

He is echoing US Gen. McChrystal’s Afghanistan strategy, essentially a strategy of occupation. In this vision development comes last and it has not come for last over 62 years. And it is even now being used to camouflage what is essentially a move to deprive the people of their right to livelihood.

Everyone within the Government and outside is in agreement that the tribal areas of the country are underdeveloped. Lots of money has been spent in the name of development of these regions, but the money has simply evaporated and there is no record of where it has gone. The people of these areas remain deprived of the most basic food, education and health services.

Despite these areas having been in the ‘hold’ of ‘democratically’ elected governments since 1947, this is the status of development. The root cause of the present struggles are the policies being implemented by the rulers since 1947, which are in the interests of a handful and opposed to the interests of the vast multitude.

It is a fact that vast majority of Indian people are suffering from poverty, deprivation and deteriorating conditions. Poor peasants and workers are subjected to the violence of landlords, their henchmen, police forces and forest officials. The government has given up even the pretense of land reforms and is even taking away the land of peasants in the name of development, for SEZs and for exploitation of mineral wealth. The Indian state has stood for the exploitation and oppression of the vast populace and is suppressing the struggles of peasants and workers. It is revealing that an establishment which turns a blind eye towards, and even sponsors the

weapons of landlords and ruling parties and politicians, launches a propaganda blitz against the resistance by the people against attacks on their livelihood and land. The Govt. is resorting to distortions, exaggerations and even utter falsehoods in its propaganda to justify its new offensive.

It is ironical that rather than rectifying the problems being drawn attention to by people’s struggles (including those led by the Maoists), the government decides to stamp out the dissidence by using the armed forces. Along with this Army action goes enactment of anti-democratic laws, indiscriminate arrests, torture, intimidation and fake encounters.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had underscored the need for this offensive in his speech in Parliament on 18.6.2009, “If left wing extremism continues to flourish in parts which have natural resources of minerals, the climate for investment would certainly be affected.”

Thus he made clear that “left wing extremism” is the main stumbling block in his govt.’s model of development i.e. for exploitation of mineral resources by foreign MNCs and big corporate houses of the country.

But these areas are inhabited by people, living and desiring to live with dignity. These are among the most oppressed people of the country. Their land is taken, livelihood destroyed and they are thrown into the wilderness of destitution, despair and hunger. Since 1947 displacement has been synonymous with destitution. People everywhere with or without Naxalites are resisting the forcible acquisition by the Govt. of their land and resources.

While the callous and criminal disregard of people’s concerns by the government is glaring, the most appalling aspect is the use of Army and Air Force against citizens of the country. These forces should not be used for the whims of those in power. They must not in any case be used against the people of the country. They are supposed to defend the borders of the country and not to kill, maim, intimidate and subjugate its own people. The action of the Govt. is bound to redefine the role of the Army and Air Force in the eyes of the people and the present Govt. has no right to do so. Though their use is not altogether new, it has earlier been sold under the garb of defending ‘unity and integrity’. Now for the first time in the history of India since 1947 the country’s forces are going to be used in the name of ‘development’. Its guns,

34

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

DECEMBER 2009

the police and armed forces are going to be used against the most deprived people, for snatching the richest lands from the poorest and handing them over to the wealthiest sections of the country and to foreign MNCs to the total detriment and deprivation of the rights vested in the Tribals by the Constitution.

If government uses armed forces against its own citizens - directly or indirectly – it will be called a hostile government which is non democratic, wages war on its own citizens. Such violation of citizens’ rights and human rights in the name of curbing violence is simply colonial in nature and against the basic principles of democracy. ·NO TO THE DECLARATION OF WAR AGAINST OUR OWN PEOPLE. ·WE SAY AN UNEQUIVOCAL NO TO THE USE OF ARMY AND AIR FORCE AGAINST THE PEOPLE OF THE COUNTRY IN ANY NAME AND UNDER ANY PRETEXT. ·WE DEMAND THAT THE GOVERNMENT IMMEDIATELY WITHDRAW ALL ARMED FORCES AND CALL OFF THE MILITIARY OFFENSIVE. ·WE CALL UPON ALL SECTIONS OF PEOPLE TO RAISE THEIR VOICE AND BUILD A STRONG PROTEST TO DETER THE GOVT. FROM SUCH CALLOUS DISREGARD FOR THE PEOPLE AND FOR THE ARMED FORCES.

range of services that include Public Health, Water and Sanitation, Building Proposals, Roads and Footpaths, Trees and Gardens, Zoo, Stray Dogs, Solid Waste Management, Education, Hawkers, Sewage, etc. (See www.mcgm.gov.in for details) a) What are the 3 targets to improve Mumbai that you would like to suggest to the new Municipal Commissioner for the next 3 years. e.g.: ensuring rain water harvesting to meet 20% of Mumbai's water needs. b) What are the guiding principles that an organisation such as MCGM should adopt: e.g. to tackle corruption or to increase effeciency?

Responses shall be compiled and forwarded to the new Municipal Commissioner.

Inputs and suggestions from individual citizens are essential to help government perform better. It is only when we all think of what we would like our city and country (and therefore society) to be, and start participating in the process to make this change, that we will achieve change at a faster rate.

Regards, Vinay www.karmayog.org - creating cities for citizens III (b)

What are the 3 positive and negative developments to have occured in the last decade in India?

PUCL Shri Subir Gokarn, who has just become the Deputy Jan Hastakshep Governor of the Reserve Bank of India, lists the PUDR following in his column in today's Business Standard: Postive developments: III (a) 1. Massive increase in the economy's capacity to absorb shocks without significant disruptions Info@karmayog.org 2. Economic activity and performance becoming less Mumbai city will soon get a new Municipal dependent on political outcomes and stability Commissioner, who heads the the Municipal 3. Increase in the scope, depth and innovativeness of Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM). The MCGM private enterprise across the board. was established in 1882, and is one of the largest local governments in the world; it serves a population of 18 Negative developments: million people over an area of 500 sq. km. with an 1. Slow rate at which the middle class is expanding.

Annual Budget of Rs. 19,000 crores. The functioning of 2. Failure of the Indian economy to act as an engine of MCGM affects the daily lives of every citizen, as it is the growth and development within the South Asian region policy-making and implementing agency for a wide 35

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

DECEMBER 2009

3. Growing mismatch between the demands being made on the state and its capacity, in every sense of the term, to deliver on them (Read the entire article at http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/subit-go karn-in-conclusion/377252/) a) What would you list as the 3 positive and negative developments in India in the last decade? b) What are your responses to the above? Read one counterview below that we have received.

-------------------------------For an average person like me, they seem to reflect a limited world where people only look at numbers and balance sheets and focus on how they can tweak or improve these numbers. An entire world of other issues and concerns are not reflected in such thinking, and, unfortunately, do not get included, as these would then contradict such views.

These are my counter-points to Shri Gokarn's points. on the Postive developments 1. This can be a positive development if we say that society can absorb shocks without disruptions or pain this has not happened; the economic downturn caused lots of lay-offs, shut-downs, etc. - the economy didn't suffer, people suffered a lot.

2. How we make money is more important than how much money we make, and hence the politics of a place (for e.g. Gujarat with it's human rights violations or Orissa with its resource-exploitative policies) is closely linked to its economic activity. To say that politics and stability doesn't affect economic activity actually says that as a society we don't care about what is happening around us, as long as we have cash in our hands.

3. Private enterprise largely thinks for itself, it is unhampered by thoughts for any others, such as the poor, or the environment, and it shoves these aside. Therefore it has to flourish, it is actually feeding off the rest of the world. Government or public enterprise cannot behave like this, and works within a whole set of constraints. on the Negative developments: 1. What is the middle class? The consumptive class? The class that doesn't care and doesn't need to care about anything but itself? The class that wants to aquire more and become upper class? These are my views of the middle class, and in this context, I am grateful that it is

slow to expand, as if it did any faster, it would wipe out the earth and it's resources very quickly.

2. Before we drive growth in the region, we must ensure that every citizen of India is above a certain level of poverty. The fact that our growth has neither done this nor driven growth in the region means that the wealth created from the growth is being concentrated in a few places / with few people only.

3. The state is unable to meet the demands made on it, as our systems are currently designed in such a way that effeciency depends on the state, with limited participation from the people, even in terms of a monetary contribution. The middle class and the rich make increasing demands on the state, while continuing to contribute little, whether in terms of taxes, or even maturity and responsibility as citizens. ...................................................

The RBI's actions and policies determine inflation and growth and hence your responses and views are important as inputs from citizens help shape and frame policy.

So do send your responses to letters@business-standard.com with a cc to info@karmayog.org Regards Vinay www.karmayog.org - towards a better world IV CFI India launches a new movement to annihilate the evil of Caste system in India.

With the cooperation of NGO associations CFI India is organizing an ACTION PLAN MEET on 31 October 2009.

The joint meeting will be held at Press club, Hyderabad in the presence of media.

Here is the immediate action plan: 1. Caste is not a hereditary property. Parents may avoid giving their caste to children as soon as they are born.

2. Encourage inter-caste marriages. Once the marriage is over, let not the couples give their caste mark to their children.

36

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

DECEMBER 2009

3. Let political parties, leaders, celebrities in movies, and sports show the way to the society and future generations by removing caste mark from their names.

4. Let not the educational institutions demand for caste names of children while admitting them.

5. Let the commercial institutions, shops, labs, avoid caste mark and remove such sign boards.

6. Let there be legislation to annihilate caste.

The cooperating NGO associations are: Humanists, Rationalists, Janavignana vedika, Caste eradication society, Manava vikasa vedika.

It is now running into serial publication in Telugu daily Surya, published from Hyderabad. The first installment appeared on 5 Nov. 2009, Thursday.

This is another publication of Center for inquiry India which will come out as a book soon.

News sent by N.Innaiah Chairman, CFI, India VI

All Gujarat Human Rights Day News sent by Narisetti Innaiah Chairman, CFI, India On 10th December 2009, All Gujarat Human Rights Day is being organized by IRHA,Gujarat unit along with Gujarat Lok Andolan. Around 1000 NGOs are expected V to participate in it. All the social workers active in their related fields are coming to share their experiences with Translation of Memoirs of a Cat the audience, participants and other NGOs active in their areas fighting for human rights in Gujarat.

M.N. Roy’s Memoirs of a Cat is very popular in India Mr. Gautam Thakar is one of the organizers. especially among South Indian Humanists. Several Radical Humanists are expected to attend the editions of Telugu translations were published and sold programme in large numbers. Interested persons may out in the past. It started with late Mr. A.V. Mohan and contact him at the following address, email id or phone continued with Venigalla Komala. numbers: Atman, 4, Sanmitra Society, Opp. Manav The latest Telugu version of M.N. Roy’s Memoirs of cat Talav, Jivraj Park Road, Ahmadabad, 380051, India, is being retranslated into modern, popular Telugu by 91-9825382556; 91-79-26641353.

Komala, V., the director of CFI India.

News sent by Gautam Thakar, Advisor, Gujarat, IRHA

From the Indian Renaissance Institute’s (IRI) Literature Archive In the following 3 pages you will find Letters written by Ellen Roy toProfessor Warren Allen Smith. Readers may be knwoing him by now. He is the author of Phylosopedia. I had published in the November 09 issue that his Philosopedia for Sale. These letters have been arranged by Mr. Innaiah for the IRI Literature Archives and are already on the RH Website. The rest the letters will tell you and help our Radical Humanists to go down their memory lane.

—Rek\h aSaraswat

37

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

DECEMBER 2009

Please check the following url on the RH Website for a clear picture of the letter: http://theradicalhumanist.com/index.php?option=com_radical&controller=literatures&Itemid=61&cid=24

38

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

DECEMBER 2009

Please check the following url on the RH Website to have a clear picture of the letter: http://theradicalhumanist.com/index.php?option=com_radical&controller=literatures&Itemid=61&cid=22

39

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

DECEMBER 2009

Please check the following url on the RH Website to have clear picture of the letter: http://theradicalhumanist.com/index.php?option=com_radical&controller=literatures&Itemid=61&cid=23

40

THE RADICAL HUMANIST

DECEMBER 2009

1