Saket Suryesh's Blog

Etymologically Hindi word for History is Itihaas- which is derived from -I- so- ti-it-haas- was. The way history has been written in communist-controlled academia post-independence has been everything that is not history. It has been a writing of opinions and perspective, not the way things were. We have lived with such manipulation of history in order to build a narrative in which Hindus, the original inhabitants of India, were deserving to be enslaved, and Muslim invaders were kind of liberators of India. This Ponzi scheme has gone on for so long that the academicians and scholars are no longer concerned with the mockery their absurd explanation of medieval savagery which was brought into India by middle-eastern militias, attracts. In his book Eminent Historians, Arun Shourie critically examines this partisan subjectivity which has impact the scholarship in Indian History when he wrote, they (these leftist historians) are from a school in which members have made each other famous by applauding each other's books and thesis. 

    With diligence, with effort, and will little support from the Government and a lot of support from the people this stranglehold over historical narrative has been cracked if not broken. However, what prompted this article is the fact that two Mughal-worshiping articles recently make way into mainstream media recently. What is absolutely galling is that the national media like Indian Express and The Print, run by old journalistic hands lacked any structure or even information which stood the scrutiny of logic. In the first one, there is an article by Adrija Roychowdhury in Indian Express, dated 26th August, 2023, titled How the Bhakti Movement Flourished under the Mughals.  Leading non-left historians have written that Bhakti movement was not some carefully crafted strategy if the Islamic invaders that Mughals too were to conserve the Hindu culture of India. Rather writers like Ramdhari Singh Dinkar (Sanskriti ke char Adhyay) and Acharya Ramchandra Shukla (Hindi Sahitya ka Itihasa) have written about the kind of oppression Hindus faced with forced conversions and the widespread destruction of Hindu temples, which shrunk the Hindu spaces of practicing the faith into private houses, away from the community religious engagements. In those dark days of demonic oppression Bhakti movement took shape, which was a cry of defeated people pinning their hopes on the unseen and unknown to end their days of oppression. 

    As if the premise itself was not lousy enough, Adrija, a student from JNU, makes it ridiculous by wild imagery. A Persianate cosmopolitan culture had made its way to South Asia with the Ghaznavid invasions of the 11th century she writes. She quietly covers up not only the brutal aspect of Islamic invasion into India, thus in one phrase cosmopolitan culture- she covers up the complete wiping away of Persian history and culture by the Islamic Arab marauders. The refugee Parsis who have since made Hindu India their homes are living evidence of the cruelty and genocide they had faced. Ms Roychowdhury couldn't care less. She quotes Patton Burchett and Diana L Eck to somehow project that the Mughals somehow brought in a spirit of secular co-existance ignoring the chequered history of now-much-acclaimed Sufism which went around as an important part of grand of game of Islamic conversion. Diana Eck is a member of Methodist Church of Harvard. The writer is a living example of an Indian scholar trying to understand India through western eyes. 

What starts out as lame piece of historical writing, turns into downright funny when in this article published in a prestigious Indian Daily, she claims that Akbar  made a land grant to the priest in Vrindavan  in 1526. She and the editor of this wonderful daily of national repute remains oblivious to the fact that Akbar was born on 15th of October, 1542 AD. Strangely this same reference is found in an IAS Preparation website (IASscore) which is meant to train future public administrators of India, published 21st of August 2023. Immediate reason for this sudden spurt and interest is PM Narendra Modi honouring Hindu Saint from the Bhakti Age, Sant Ravidas, so it became urgent to immediately ensure that Bhakti movements credit should be taken away from a Hindu thinker and passed on to the Mughals. 

[image error]Excerpt from Indian Express Article

In an another unrelated note, she quotes another JNU Historian Harbans Mukhia to claim that Bhakti Movement was brought in not to protect an under-attack polytheist Hindu faith but to convert Hinduism into a Monotheistic faith like Islam. Coincidentally, Harbans Mukhia also claimed that until 1822 there was no discourse on Ram Mandir, and there never was a Ram Mandir in Ayodhya. So driven by the ideology are these leftist historians that facts mean little to them. Mr. Mukhia and his ilk have been thoroughly exposed in Allahabad High Court. Historical evidences like the Guru Nanak's writings and Gazetteers written in 17th century have all been ignored by men like Mr. Mukhia. In a speech he made to a gathering of Muslims, he lied about all the evidences which Mughals themselves had written about their temple destruction activities starting right from Babar and Akbar, claiming that there was no evidence of destruction of temples by the Mughals. It cannot go more blatant than that. 
    Then after India had successful mission to Moon, came an article by Professor Dilip Mandal, which spoke of the centuries lost when the Mughals did precious little to promote science and general public development work. What Mr. Mandal proposed in his article has been corroborated by many contemporaries of Mughals who wrote in detail about who public wealth was squandered off in building private wealth of the Emperors while the masses suffered huge devastations in incessant famines across the country. Another JNU scholar, Mayurpankhi Choudhury quickly rushed in to counter the claim in another article in The Print, Why the Mughals did not fail India in Science. In a close to 1800 words rebuttal, Mayurpankhi spent 1200 words to quote European historians, and writes about Black Lives Matter and Jamaica and Europe, without even mentioning the word 'Mughal'. He then writes about the advances in science in Arab world, quoting Al Biruni, who came to India four centuries before the Mughals came, somehow mixing Islam with Mughals. Then he writes about Arabian scientific discoveries in vague terms, ending with one does not have the space to cover the strides that were made in shipbuilding industry etc. Yes, you obviously do not have the space because you are low on facts and high on emotion, having wasted 1500 out of an 1800 words article on nothing remotely connected to the topic. Then he tried to make up for lack of data by extrapolating the Arabian progress in science before Islam and in the initial phases of Islam to the Mughals. I fail to understand the kind of scholars our education system is churning out. This article is a living proof of poor scholarship which ails the study of Indian history. The article is an example of how one can write an article heavy on rhetorics and so light on facts and objectivity that it should never have been published. 

 

Much has been written about the recent Narendra Modi's visit. The epoch-making visit is hailed by the real watchers of geo-politics and has been dumped by the political propagandists who often go around posing as neutral journalists. A shady character famous for releasing doctored video, as always, jumped into the fray to claim that Ms. Sabrina Siddiqui, the Pakistani-Origin American Journalist of Business Magazine, Wall Street Journal, who asked a dumb question to the Prime Minister Narendra Modi, was actually an Indian person, or at least and India loving person, with an illustrious background, linking her to Sir Syed Ahmad Khan. Indian media, as always, clueless and as if on a cue, latched on to the narrative that Ms Siddiqui is A- a journalist, so she should not be criticised for her public work as a journalist and B- She cheered for Indian Cricket team in some cricket match so she must be a patriot. 

I have problem with both the points. As long as the attacks are on the substance and truth and are impersonal, anyone working in public sphere of life, must be willing to accept both bouquets and brickbats. Journalism is a business of opinion, and opinions are a business of perspective. That some Main Stream channels and intellectuals who chose to stay silent about the illegal arrest of head of an Indian media channel, and of late on the arrest of a poor independent journalist from Bihar under draconian NSA, makes their position absolutely non-serious and their moral posturing on the matter of Sabrina Siddiqui totally preposterous. Sabrina had asked the question which many Islamist Lobbyist from Pakistan and some from India wanted US establishment to ask Modi. In an absolute defiance to the the fanatic faction of US intelligentsia, the US official establishment, rightly refused to be dragged into an invented oppression narrative. Ms. Sabrina and Mr. Obama, the ex-President, who is more like our Satpal Mallik, the ex-Governor appointed by Modi Government who turned rogue after being chucked out of power, were only two fig leafs they could gather. The Congress, one of whose disqualified MP from Wayanad, has made it into a habit of maligning Indian on foreign shores, had to make do with these two non-entities, as far as Geo-politics is concerned. Possibly Mr. Barack Obama was catering to the local audience in the ongoing debate on the next Democrat Presidential candidate. In any case, in one of the most successful US travel by any Indian Prime Minister in the history of India as been reduced by the Indian media into one sentence by Obama, claiming that not heeding to the oppression of minorities (no, he was not referring to minorities in general, rather was speaking about the second largest majority in India), may lead to breaking up of India. Ms. Sabrina asked Modi about the protection of rights of Muslims in India (not of Jews, Persians, Sikhs, Jains). It is a pity that neither of them could speak on facts. 

For the first, Sabrina Siddiqui is not an Indian as claimed by Zubair, a man who claims, allegedly to not be a journalist, but Indian media never stops insisting that he is, indeed, a journalist. She, Indian media, who tried to mock the outrage by attempting to prove her as a patriotic Indian, dug out her ancestry, linking her to Sir Syed Ahmad Khan. Sir Syed was the first person in the history of modern India to speak of Two-Nation theory, at the time when Savarkar was a toddler. In the name of secularism, attempts have been made to project Sir Syed as a freedom fighter. The records however, clearly indicate that Sir Syed was an employee of East India Company in all his working years. He was given knighthood for standing with the British in 1857 war of Independence. Sabrina's family chose India over Pakistan and her father became a Pakistani citizen, same as Jinnah or Bhuttos. About her pictures with Indian cricket Jersey which were floated to bolster the erroneous claim, it is common for the Pakistanis to support Indian team as long as Pakistan itself is not in the contest, secondly, Dawood Ibrahim, the noted gangster and wanted-terrorist for Mumbai blast was also a fan of Indian cricket. That, in itself, is no proof of Indian leaning. 

Now coming to the question she asked- “India has long prided itself as the world’s largest democracy, but there are many human rights groups who say that your government has discriminated against religious minorities and sought to silence its critics,” 

What is amazing that this preposterous line of questioning does not mention any data about how the Government has discriminated. The question is no different from the questions often Pakistani journalists raise at various forums to create an image of Muslims being under oppression in a Hindu-majority India. Some may say that even when Sabrina calls herself not as a Business Journalist or a Political Journalist, rather as a Muslim Journalist, her heart is bleeding not for Muslims, rather for all the minorities. As in the very next sentence, she clearly asks about what is Modi government doing to protect the rights of Muslims in India. Let us look at her charges. 

The contention that Sabrina makes is true in one aspect. Indian constitution with various amendments done as politicians fell over one another post independence, makes Muslims a privileged class, with specials laws and privileges like Waqf act, Places of Worship Act. There have been attempts by Congress to claim that the Muslims have first rights to national resources and bringing in Communal Violence Bill which places the responsibility of any communal violence on Hindus, even when there be Seventy Two Hindus charred to death in a train compartment by fanatics belonging to Ms Siddiqui's religion. All things notwithstanding, Hindus and Muslims do get along quite well in India, if we were to look at the kind of distrust and trouble which brews in the US on account of race and creed. Assuming for a minute, there exists some cause of friction between Hindus and Muslims, for instance, recent spate of Hindu beheadings, still the attempt to superimpose 'Black Lives Matter' to a fake 'Muslim Lives Matter' do not stand to the scrutiny. Here is a much respected Pew Report on whether or not Indian Muslims feel they are discriminated by the State. 

 As we see, 89% of Indian Muslims feel they are free to practice their religion. In fact, the community which feels least free as per survey are Sikhs and Jains. By the second line of Ms. Siddiqui's question, one is very clear that she is not bothered about actual minorities, but only concerned about the world's second largest majority religion, with around hundred countries under its official influence. A known fanatic, diligently exploiting faultlines, with a view of creating Muslim Supremacy in India, Arfa cobbled together humanitarian and unifying laws like Triple Talaq Laws to claim that Government is framing laws to oppress the Muslims. The fact is that this law restores the right to dignity for Muslim women as was envisaged by Supreme Court in Shah Bano verdict. The Congress at that time had overturned the verdict of the highest judiciary. As per Pew Survey, 56% of Muslims opposed Triple Talaq. The fanatic intellectuals, whose job is to create unrest and riots for poorer muslims to resort to violence on the fake slogans of 'Islam is in danger' while getting their beauty treatments in fancy saloons, clearly do not know which way the wind is blowing. 

On the question of Muslim discrimination, the survey results are even more interesting. 21% of Indian Hindu adults think there is discrimination against Hindus and 24% of Indian Muslims think there is discrimination against Muslims. Also another interesting thing is that a higher percentage of BJP supporters think that a pluralistic society benefits the nation. However, this pluralistic idea is neither a product of BJP nor a product of Constitution, rather it is an inherent Hindu character feature which existed when persecuted Jews and Parsis found refuge in India, many centuries before Ambedkar and Constituent Assembly came up. 

The whole point is that this narrative of Minority persecution and/or oppression is flawed. Stray incidents of crime do not define state policy, just as gun violence and crime against blacks in the US cannot be attributable to State Policy and Joe Biden cannot be held accountable to them. In terms of representation, Indian Parliament has 90% Hindus, and US Congress has 88% Christians. Unlike 19% Hindus who think India should be a Hindu Rashtra (https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/i...) as per CSDS Survey, while 45% of Americans agree that US should be a Christian country. 

It is absolutely surprising that even a mention of the word Hindu Rashtra in a nation which was partitioned on that very premise and which has inherent Hindu protection minorities stitched into Hindu philosophy gets Ms. Siddiqui and her friends sitting in a nation where overwhelming population wants state to be Christian nation, up in arms. While much-maligned Manusmriti has been cause of concern to Islamist intellectuals from Islamic State of Pakistan and India like Sabrina and Arfa, 78% of Americans think that Bible should influence American laws. 

Forget Sabrina, these points should concern even the out-of-job Satpal Mallik of US, Barack Hussain Obama, who has just discovered his conscience after bombing six muslim nations killing thousands,  possibly as he is working out his way back into the white house as the First Gentleman to Michele Obama. So making right noises to his fake constituency of blacks is important, but the data staring at him tells that he needs to focus more on the US than on India. Maybe, growing some Hindu sensitivity in his polity, will help US become safer for Minorities and Blacks. 

Human conflicts are an outcome of religious fanaticism, more so coming from the faiths which have fanaticism and military violence built into their histories. They should not be used as a political tool. More than that, citizens and media of a nation like India which is at the cusp of redicovering its destiny based on a sound, Hindu, intellectual culture of centuries, should not reduce themselves into turning into a tool. 

To borrow from famous movie A Few Good Man, my message to Mr. Obama, Ms. Siddiqui and their cheerleaders from Muslim Nationalist Party, Indian National Congress in India is that

"We use words like Secularism, Tolerance, democracy. We use these words as backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as punchline." 

Unlike the fanatic terror state that Ms Sabrina came from to the state, and Mr Obama who became the President in a state where four out of the first five Presidents were slave owners, India, in the Constituent Assembly had Muslim leaders like Tajamul Hussain from Patna, who dumped the concept of Minorityism and said- The British created Minorities. The British have gone and minorities gone with them. Remove the term minority from your dictionary. There is no minority in India.

Begam Aizaz Rasool from UP had said- It is necessary that the Muslims living in this country should give up separatist tendencies and throw their full weight in building up a truly secular state. 

That is the difference between their founding fathers and our founding fathers. Unfortunately to please the West, we have imported western thought and in order to pursue fragmented fanatic vote bank, cultivated the same communal idea which runs contrary to every fabric of historic and cultural structure of India. Let us call out the crooked politics of the fanatics of Pakistan and politicians of the West. To the Arfa's of the world who hide their fanatic fangs under the garb of victimhood, as we walk to equality for all, appeasement for none let us quote Sardar Patel, the most loved Congress leader at the time of independence, who famously said - A minority that can force partition on a country is not a minority at all. If you are a strong, well-knit and well-organised minority, why do you want to claim safeguards? Why do you want to claim privileges?

"

 “For the saddest epitaph which can be carved in the memory of a vanished liberty is that it was lost because its possessors failed to stretch forth a saving hand while yet there was time.”

- Dr. Syama Prasad Mukherjee, 16th of May, 1651, During debate on the First Amendment of Indian Constitution brought in by Nehru imposing restrictions on Freedom of Speech.

In the face of a certain defeat in the face of a brute Congress majority backing Nehru bringing back colonial restrictions on liberty months after Independent India’s new constitution was adopted, a sad and dejected Dr. Mukherjee had quoted George Sutherland, a Supreme Court Judge of the United States of America (1922 to 1938). Nehru quickly went out with a vengeance and got noted Urdu poet Mazrooh Sultanpuri and actor Balraj Sahni arrested for two years, former for writing a poetry critical of Nehru and latter on sedition charges. When the debate on first amendment was going on an Dr. Mukherjee, who would later found Jan Sangh, the predecessor to the Bhartiya Janata Party, forewarned him -Maybe you will continue for eternity, in the next generation, for the generations unborn…but supposing another party comes into authority? What is the precedence you are laying down? I am not sure that even Dr. Mukherjee would be aware that some day great Grandson of Nehru would find himself at the receiving end of the laws Nehru formulated, slowly but surely strangulating the free spirit of democracy. 

In a speech in 2019, buoyed by a cheering coterie of unelected and unelectable who came to surround Rahul Gandhi as his advisors, and self-assured in his own greatness being the scion of the Nehru family which survived as a legitimate political force in spite of writing the cruelest episode of Emergency, owing to the forgiving people of India, made offensive comments, loosely calling all belonging to one caste, coincidentally falling under the Other backward classes, as thieves. The matter went to court and yesterday, the court in Surat convicted Rahul Gandhi and sentenced him with two years of imprisonment. Immediately bail was sought and obtained, a happy and relieved Rahul Gandhi came back home. Little did he realise that it was not only his Great Grandfather’s work but his father’s and his own actions will soon come to haunt him. The Surat court convicted Rahul Gandhi, gave him bail, saving him from an immediate arrest and granted him Thirty days time to approach higher judiciary for relief. While this was well understood that a conviction of two years will attract the disqualification, there were some apparent confusion, if not a haughtiness which gave Mr. Gandhi some sense of invincibility. From Rafale allegation to National Herald to charges on RSS, the easy escapes from law, with a battery of legal eagles supporting him possibly filled him with a false sense of security that he had no reason to worry. Possibly he did not but then he has never been convicted till now. For some reason, the battery of lawyers who exist simply to protect the first family of Congress misread the implications of the judgement. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, one of the family lawyer of the Gandhi family, claimed that he could not read the judgement as it was in Gujarati, which is strange that a national party could not find one person who could translate the critical judgement for Mr. Singhvi and other Congress lawyers. 

What appears most likely is that they did not consider political ramifications of a legal development. After the judgement of Surat court, Rahul could have come out on bail and then claimed being a martyr being attacked for raising the voice for the masses and more importantly, for attacking Adani. While BJP has put the matter of his unsavoury statements in foreign lands to the privilege committee of the parliament, to suspend Rahul Gandhi on that would have had limited impact and would have smacked of vindictiveness on the part of Modi government. This two-year conviction was a god-send opportunity for the BJP. While the Judge of Surat court gave Rahul thirty days to appeal, his disqualification came into effect immediately. The thirty day time frame is not to delay disqualification rather to appeal to higher courts. There seems to have been some confusion there. 

There are three arguments being made which possibly could in a way, explain the lackadaisical manner in which the Congress handled the whole matter. First is the reading of Representation of People’s Act, 1951, Section 8 on Disqualification on conviction for certain offences. There is a vague mention that the disqualification will happen only if an appeal is not filed within three months from the conviction and once appeal is filed, the disqualification will not take effect until the appeal is disposed off by the higher Courts (sub-clause 4). Secondly, there is a perception being built that this disqualification will require a confirmation from the President. There is a time of 30-days given to Rahul Gandhi to file an appeal. Many bleeding-heart legal luminaries who are great because their fathers were great legal luminaries like Prashan Bhushan are harping on this stay claiming that the court gave Rahul Gandhi 30 days to act in order to keep his Parliamentary membership but the cruel government has decided to not let him take benefit of what the learned Judge of Surat court has granted him. 

The Defamation Laws came to India with IPC during the British rule under Section 499 and Section 500, brought in by Lord Macaulay in 1837. Section 499 of the IPC 1860, stated- Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said to defame that person. Rahul Gandhi had the option of apologising claiming the comment to be unintentional but the advisors might have thought that this was an opportunity to make a low-cost martyr for the cause of free speech out of Rahul Gandhi and he stood with his statement, unapologetic. Section 500 defines the provisions of punishment for defamation as Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. Thus the questions on the quantum of punishment handed out to Rahul Gandhi for attempting to call a community, an OBC community in this case, as thieves is totally in accordance with the laid down laws. Now some may argue that this law stands in contradiction to Article 19(1) of Indian Constitution and it does. But this was covered by Nehru, Rahul Gandhi’s Great Grandfather and the first Prime Minister of India in the first amendment under Article 19(1)(a) which  puts freedom of expression and speech (from where we started this article) under reasonable restraint, defamation laws are said to protect fundamental right to reputation under Article 21. This was settled in the Supreme Court in Subramanian Swamy Vs. Government of India case in 2016 judgement by the bench of Justice Deepak Misra and Justice Prafull C Pant, leaning on the first amendment brought in by Nehru. 

The law under which Rahul is convicted could have become even more stringent if Rahul’s father had prevailed with the Defamation bill of 1988. The bill was brought in the parliament on 29th of August, 1988 and was passed within a day. The bill was a knee-jerk response by Rajiv Gandhi to the constant attack on his government in Bofors Bribery case. After widespread public outrage on the charges of attempts to muzzle the media with the bill, the bill was withdrawn in September, 1988.

Coming to what is meant by the time of Thirty days given to him to file an appeal, let us look at what the courts said while explaining the political ramification of this two year sentence. This is covered in the Section 8 of Representation of People’s Act, 1951, which provisions for the disqualification of an elected representative when convicted for a period of two years. The original Act gave a leeway to the convicted elected representatives under Sub-clause 8 (4). The original provision under clause 8(3) is to disqualify the elected representative convicted and handed out a sentence of two year imprisonment and barring him or her from contesting for any public office for 6 years from the time of release from his sentence. This effectively in current case would mean rendering Rahul gandhi unfit for contesting public election till 2029, assuming that the sentence of two year is brought into effect immediately. The Clause 8(4) had a provision wherein the disqualification was not to be effected until the time superior courts have reached a decision in case when the representative appeals in higher court within 3 months of the initial conviction. This clause was made ineffective by the Supreme Court in 2013, July order in Lily Thomas case, where the an octogenarian lawyer, Lily Thomas filed a case, aghast at the way convicted criminals were making way to the parliament taking shelter under Clause 8(4). 

The lawyer, Lily Thomas, who filed the petition first in 2005 famously said- “Krishna in Bhagwan Gita says that He will be born for restoring Dharma whenever it is in danger. Here, Dharma is broken every day. What we need is a satvik parliament devoid of corrupt politicians, so that democracy runs on principles.”  The lawyer from Kerala, whose case was argued by Fali Nariman, was from Kerala, incidentally the state from where Rahul Gandhi got himself elected as an MP with the support of Muslim League after losing his traditional seat of Amethi in UP.  The Supreme Court, in the July, 2013 Judgement  ruled that Clause 8(4) was unconstitutional, thus the suspension of disqualification post-conviction, while waiting for the appeal to be decided upon, was ruled out. The Supreme Court bench of Justice AK Patnaik and Justice Sudhanshu Jyoti Mukhopathyay held that the Parliament had no power to enact sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act (Representation of People’s Act, 1951) and accordingly the sub-section was ultra-vires the constitution, the judgement added notwithstanding that he files an appeal or revision against the conviction and/or sentence. The sub-clause which many intellectuals opposing the disqualification of Rahul Gandhi are harping on was struck down as unconstitutional in 2913 by the Supreme Court when UPA was in power. 

Another question is being raised by the narrative-builders and propagandist on what they claim is undue haste in effecting the disqualification of MP from Wayanad. The same 2013 judgement answers on this. It Staes that the the seat of a member who becomes subject to disqualification..will fall vacant on the date on which the member incurs the disqualification and can not await the decision of the President or the Governor as the case may be, under Articles 103 and 192 of the constitution. When this clear and firm verdict came from the Supreme Court on the 10th of July, 2013, in a hurry to protect the convicted leaders of Congress and their allies (Laloo Yadav’s corruption case was key consideration at that time whose conviction was supposed to come on 30th of September), UPA under Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh brought in an ordinance to upturn the court verdict on 24th of September, 2013 after their review petition was dismissed in early September, 2013. As fate would have it, a mere MP, and not even the President of the party, Rahul Gandhi, thrusting his supremacy over other elected members of the Manmohan Singh cabinet, tore off the ordinance in a public display of arrogance, humiliating the sitting Prime Minister of India. Now, himself disqualified under the same law, under the same article of Constitution, Rahul Gandhi joins a long list of political heavyweights like Laloo Yadav and late Ms. Jayalalitha in being disqualified. The advisors who advised Rahul to be abusive and obnoxious  in order to project himself as a contender to the power are cacophonous and cantankerous in their opposition to his disqualification. Amid all the noisy propaganda by his supporters, the fact remains, Rahul’s own political and family history has come back to haunt him. We will not get into the nonsensical narrative building by the cottage industry called ‘Make Rahul PM’ claiming that the case was filed in 2019 because Hindenburg was to make a mischievous Adani report in 2023. The fact remains that while Rahul is the latest victim of the law, validated by the first amendment of Nehru, it has saved Indian democracy from convicted criminals acting as law-makers even after their conviction in the courts of law. 

[image error]

Many have not seen Pathan, I have. I have a huge tolerance towards stupid movies and I love to watch all sort of movies. What has bothered me most about Pathaan is that in terms of content and characterisation, it is absolutely shoddy, much worse than much lampooned RaOne AND there is no review which openly tells you about it. 

Most reviewers have reviewed the movie like a teenager, gushing over VFX generated body of ShahRukh Khan. This reminds me of my schoolmates bunking classes to watch tomato-sauce-laced movies of Ramsey brothers, gushing over semi-nude voluptuous actresses in the late 80s. Only difference being that those were school kids in class XII, with raging hormones and a stupefied intellect when a world around them was fast changing. Here we have middle-aged professional movie reviewers guiding people to their way in or out of Movie theatres. Their primary argument in favour of the movie is nothing but beefed up Shahrukh Khan and the gap between his earlier movie and this one. 

Another argument is to guilt-trip audience into the theatres on two grounds- one, Shahrukh Khan has made this movie at the age of 57 after a gap of six years, another is that there is a lot of hard work of technicians etc behind this venture. I find both the arguments misplaced. If I suffer with a writer's block and publish my next book after a gap of five years; it does not befalls on the conscience of the readers to need my book merely on the account of the long gap if the book turned out to be lame, shoddy and uninteresting. Much has been made about how this movie is a make-or-break for Shahrukh's fortunes and if the movie fails, he will be a broken man. Men in slums of Jamia Nagar and Jahaangirpuri are nudged to step out and watch the movie to support the beleaguered Super star, who even if the movie turned out dud and makes zero profit will be watching the sunsets from his posh, grotesquely rich bungalow in Bandra. In all the riches, he has accumulated through the largely secular affections of a nation which loved him, the success and failure of this movie will be but a blip. SRK is a smart businessman and has multiple business ventures to support him in a a bad spell. On the point of technicians and other people who worked on the movie, it is no less than the manpower behind a successful Kantara or a failed Prithviraj. 

We cannot be expected to be more serious about the movie than Shahrukh Khan himself has been about it. When you do not spend any thoughts about the story, the lyrics, the music, not to mention public sensibilities and sympathies- you cannot except the public to accept it merely out of affection or gratitude. The movie has been promoted by the opposition political parties in a brazen fashion as an answer to the Hindutva- Brigade (opposition would call it Hindutva thugs). Polarisation in this nation helps not only politics, but also the movies. While it is a general trend to blame Hindus to be communally polarised, the fact is that Hindus have always questioned the politicians about roads, schools, electricity, apart from Ram Mandir. On the other side, Amanatullah Khan of Shaheen Bagh or Owaisi of Hyderabad will survive merely on the fake 'Islam is in Danger' slogan, whether or not there is drinking water in his constituency, or power cables hang dangerously, gutters are overflowing and schools are primitive. Much maligned Hindu fanatic will not watch a Prithviraj if the story does not hold him, songs are shoddy and acting is poor. For the other community, they have been charged to make the movie successful even when it nibbles at their sensibilities, numbs their sensitivities. That said, I have found rows and rows of seats empty on day -2 of the movie in the NCR. In Pathaan, after selling politics in the name of faith has reached a new depth with selling art in the name of faith. 

Coming to the meat and substance of the movie, the title and the theme of the movie is meant to glorify a foreign race, a race originating from North-West Frontier Province, or Pakistan-Afghanistan border. That is not new, it has been a running theme from Kabuliwala of Tagore to Sherkhan of Zanjeer. Indians have always accepted it, and equated it with the kind persona of Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan who opposed partition on religious lines and told Gandhi after the creation of Pakistan- You have thrown us to the wolves. But that was before Taliban swept to power in Afghanistan, wiped off minorities from there and Pakistan reduced its minorities to a notional presence. To expect India to be as affectionate towards the Pathaans in modern world speaks only about megalomanic, individualistic outlook of the makers of the movie. The makers have not made the movie because they understood and followed the masses, rather they made the movie to teach the masses what to think and how to feel about things. 

The story of the movie is about an injured Indian Army officer, who initially it appeared, the makers wanted to turn into some kind of Robocop with Rahul and Raj's charm, but then they decided to turn him into a bulked up human being. The VFX used to do so is shoddy, as they try to make his chiselled body shine up in the Sun, something similar to the Sylvester Stallone in Rambo -3 at the Tibetan Monastery (remember the entry scene of the movie). Only thing, Stallone's physique looks much real than SRK's body shining in a Sphagetti top  in Pathan. The Army man, a Colonel, who runs the newly created outfit under Dimple, is a routine guy. Most men, even of SRK's freshly created troop who are sent out to the most dangerous places aren't trained in physical combat (we learn it in the climax when Amol had to be rescued by the brave ISI agent, played by Deepika). 

In the West, they have made movies and series like The Looming Towers or The Caliphate, and even in India, we had honest movies like Black Friday or an Uri or The Kashmir Files made earlier. There are enough facts rolling around which can be picked up to make a fast-paced thriller, provided the intention is to titillate and entertain. From the very beginning, the premise and object of Pathaan looks suspect as they claim all the terror acts of proclaimed terror organisations of Islamist leanings like Daesh and Book Haram were not committed by them, rather by some mercenary, Professional Terror Organisation, devoid of any ideology of religious supremacy. The poor ISIS and Boko Haram were falsely implicated. What was the purpose of these organisations, sell flowers online or offer personality development course from celebrity Ted talk speakers- the makers do not tell us. Shahrukh has taken the victim-card to justify terror narrative to another level with this exoneration of globally recognised terror organisations. 

The acts of global terror for which global terrorist organisations have been blamed internationally resulting in action to an extent of bombing of Syria and Afghanistan to rubbles is actually committed by a disgruntled Indian Army Officer and ex-RAW officer, Jim. A military officer going rogue is not a first-time ever plot. In much acclaimed movie, The Rock starring Sean Connery too we had a US Military commander gone rogue. But there is one difference, at no point of the movie did we see the movies making hero out of the Russians, traditional American antagonists. In Pathaan, Pakistan spy agency ISI is shown as a highly moral organisation conscious of humanitarian role it can play. As per Deepika who plays an ISI operative and love interest of Pathaan, it is only few extremists of ISI who work against India in specific and humanity as a whole and they have grained traction only because India amended Article 370 which gave special rights outside constitutional boundaries to Kashmir because it was a Muslim majority state. Since this is a non-serious movie, let us not get into a serious discussion on Kashmir and Article 370. One the very basic level, the movie contends that before Article 370 was amended, ISI was a part of Mother Teresa charity organisation supporting education of girl Children and Malala ran away from Pakistan because the syllabus was very tough. Deepika is our Matahari from a very progressive Pakistan who loves to dress-up like Urofi Javed, and tempts our sharp and professional SRK into one stupidity after another until she obtains two Orbs containing Small-pox virus. 

Jim, the ex-RAW and ex-Indian Army officer, is head of a global terror organisation who is either short on funds or is Gandhian in his approach towards terror work as he loves to do everything himself. So when it comes to kidnapping an Indian scientist (of course, who but an Indian sci    entist, the effete Hindu Baniya will create a virus to endanger humanity, just to save his life), he himself descends on the streets and kidnaps the famous scientist from a convoy of one car. Hanging at the Helicopters, whose fan could cut the cables and which he is able to pull by sheer muscle power to tie the two choppers to a bus. There is a thin line dividing unbelievable action from stupid stunt. This movie breaches that line very often believing that appreciating this movie is a noble endeavour and one will ignore these absurdities in the larger interests of human race. Many did, because they had to answer the threat mongers and hate mongers calling for the boycott of the movie. 

The scientist is kidnapped in a ludicrous attempt by a self-reliant chief of terror organisation (gone are the days of Shakaal sitting back and coordinating such missions from the safety of his island) and Pathaan is back in his office with his team of three-four people, which is only hope for India with world's largest Army and a significant number of people in its covert-operation bodies. He is then lured by a Bikini-clad operative from Islamic republic of Pakistan to Spain. The shores there gives SRK and Deepika an opportunity to put their bodies, graphically-created or otherwise to a good show and those who swayed to the moves of Huma Khan and Silk Smitha when young, now, older, respectable, leer at these two stars, and exclaim in their movie reviews- Jai ho, Pathaan. 

Pathaan is fooled into procuring the two orbs kept in a safety locker, under the able supervision of a tharki terrorist and an old woman, Karen. Deepika ditches SRK and runs away with the Orbs. Our hero is captured by evil Russians, who, do not like traditional ways of killing the spies by shooting or poisoning, decided to explore a new way by putting Pathaan in a train with dangerous thugs who get easily beaten up by the Pathan, briefly supported by Salman. Salman plays tiger, another Indian operative from another series of movies, but then his mandate is limited to rescuing Shahrukh and giving him some painkillers. A disciplined force, one operative does not steps into another operative's mission even when the world is at an arm's length from danger. The movie then turns into something like a bond movie as the scene moves to snow-clad mountains. And then it swiftly moves into an Ironman kind of set up with flying actors, missile and caves of Afghanistan. The Pathans from Pak-Afghan border, the same place where Tehreek-e-Taliban-e-Pakistan (TTP) a terror organisation finds its origin, much like their humanitarian counterparts in ISI, rise to the occasion, to save humanity under threat of a rogue RAW agent. Together they saw the world, by switching off the detonator of virus, which John Abraham, the villain who claims to be a 'lover' of Bharat Mata, is killed by SRK who is the son of Bharat Mata. By the time this happens, your intellect is dead, your mind is numb to even comprehend if there is some deep message hidden in the two definitions of India as demonstrated by the two protagonists. 

The dialogues are commonplace, the wit is pathetic, the story is missing. The shifting background is touted as an evidence of movie being fast paced, it is not. A fast paced movie can remain fast-paced even in a room (remember A Few Good Men again with an Army chief as villain). The music does not lingers on your minds even a moment after the scene changes, the lyrics are not memorable. It is totally a shoddy movie, made with little heart into it and tries to exploit political polarisation to seek an undeserving success. The movie reeks of the elite looking-down at the mass mindset, across community and is an insult to the intellect and emotions of the people who spend a great part of their earnings to seek some entertainment. The movie is either a lazy effort or is funded by those who wanted to carry a skewed narrative. Either way, this is not an honest movie of Shahrukh like say a Kabhi Haan, Kabhi Naan, Bazigar, Dilwale Dulhaniya le Jaayenge, Dil Se or Swadesh. This is not a movie that SRK will be proud of. He may make money out of it, as many reports talk of full house advance bookings, fictional or otherwise. Maybe, he has paid tribute to his tribal origins and his ancestral past with the movie and abandoned his present and his future in the process. It is not that older actors cannot act as action heroes. We have had the Taken series a testimony to an older actor, playing his age and still acting as an action hero. Maybe SRK finds such a space and enchants us in another movie without trying to guilt trip us into watching his lousily created, agenda-heavy movie. Even when Amitabh came with Indrajit and Jadugar as his comeback movies, they were rejected by the people. It had nothing to do with people's love for Amitabh or their commitment to constitution of Baba Saheb (or is it Rajendra Prasad's). We are not in a Germany where all have to hail Hitler's paintings for political appropriateness. 

सत्यम, दानम, क्षमा शीलमानृशंस्य तपो घृणा।

दृश्यंते यत्र नागेंद्र स ब्राह्मण इति स्मृतः।।

(हे सर्पराज, जिसमें सत्य, दानशीलता, क्षमा, क्रूरतारहित भाव, तप एवं संवरण, एवं संवेदना हो, वह मनुष्य को ही ब्राह्मण मानना चाहिए।)

शुद्रे तु यद् भवेल्लक्षम द्विजे तच्च न विद्दयते।

न वै शूद्रों भवेच्छुद्रो ब्रह्मणो न च ब्राह्मण:।।

(यदि शूद्र में यह गुण हैं (सत्य, दान, अक्रोध, अहिंसा, तप, संवरण एवं संवेदना) और ब्राह्मण में यह गुण परिलक्षित ना हों तो वह शूद्र शूद्र नहीं, ब्राह्मण है; और वह ब्राह्मण ब्राह्मण नहीं है।) 

- युधिष्ठिर -नहुष संवाद, अजगर कांड, महाभारत, वन पर्व 

वर्तमान परिपेक्ष्य में जिसे जाति कहा जाता है, वह वर्ण व्यवस्था का विकृत रूप है। सनातन धर्म का वर्ण जहाँ समाज को व्यवसाय एवं क्षमता के अनुरूप व्यवस्थित करने का प्रयास था और कर्म पर आधारित था, जाति उसी व्यवस्था का विघटित रूप बन कर जन्मगत व्यवस्था बन गई। जाति या कास्ट पुर्तगाली शब्द कास्टा से निकला है जिसका तात्पर्य वंश अथवा प्रजाति से होता है, जो इस कारण जन्म- आधारित होता है। सनातन परम्परा में इसे गुण -धर्म पर आधारित माना गया है एवं निहित स्वार्थों एवं जातीय राजनीति के विरोध में महाभारत काल से ही इसे वंशगत स्वार्थ से जोड़े जाने का विरोध हमारे धर्म ग्रंथ ही करते रहे हैं। 

ऋग्वेद के जिस भाग में विभिन्न वर्णो के ब्रह्मा के शरीर के विभिन्न अंशों से उद्धृत होने के प्रसंग को ले कर जाति की पश्चिमी अवधारणा को भारतीय वर्ण व्यवस्था से संतुलित करने का प्रयास किया गया है। तथ्य यह है कि ऋग्वेद के दशम मंडल के पुरुष सूक्त में जहाँ यह उद्धृत है कि प्रत्येक वर्ण ब्रह्मा के शरीर के अंश हैं वह चारो वर्णों को ब्रह्मा से बांधता है, और किसी भी वर्ण को ब्रह्मा से भिन्न नहीं मानता है। आधुनिक राजनीति ने समाज को सवर्ण और दलित में बाँटा है, वैदिक विद्वता तो वर्ण के अंदर आने वाले प्रत्येक वर्ग को वर्ण से जुड़ा अर्थात् सवर्ण ही मानती रही है। वैदिक व्यवस्था के अनुसार अवर्ण तो केवल अभारतीय ही हुए हैं।  भारतीय दर्शन में शरीर के भिन्न भागों में ना कोई भिन्नता है ना ही ब्रह्मा के मस्तक, भुजा, जंघा एवं चरणों में प्रतिस्पर्धा है। प्रत्येक भाग अनिवार्य है, आवश्यक है एवं एक ही परम ब्रह्म का अंश है। 

आज जहाँ हिंदू सनातनी समाज में राजनैतिक विभाजन की रेखाएँ स्वार्थवश गहराई जा रही हैं, यह आवश्यक है कि हम कायस्थ इतिहास पर दृष्टि डालने से पूर्व धर्म की वर्ण के संदर्भ में वास्तविक स्थिति को समझें। यह किसी भी वर्ण के लिए तो आवश्यक है ही, कायस्थ वर्ण के लिए तो यह और भी प्रासंगिक और अनिवार्य हो जाता है, क्योंकि कायस्थ ही वह काया से उत्पन्न वह वर्ण है जो ब्रह्मा के प्रत्येक अंग को अपने भीतर परिलक्षित करता है। काया वह है जो ब्रह्मा के मस्तक सूचक ब्राह्मण, भुजा सूचक क्षत्रिय, जंघा सूचक वैश्य एवं चरण सूचक शूद्र को अपने भीतर समाहित कर लेती है, और ब्रह्मा की इस काया में स्थित है कायस्थ। 

कायस्थ जातीय संघर्षों के मध्य सनातन के मूल कर्म -आधारित व्यवस्था की स्मृति है; कायस्थ बुद्धि में ब्राह्मण, वीरता में क्षत्रिय, वाणिज्य में वैश्य, कला, शिल्प, श्रम एवं सेवा में शूद्र है। चित्रगुप्त का देवत्व आत्मा का आँकलन उसके जन्म, कुल इत्यादि से इतर कर्म फल के आधार पर करने पर ही है।स्वाभाविक ही है, एक विभाजक राजनीति में कायस्थ ही उस कड़ी का कार्य करे जो समाज को बांध के रख सके, भले इस इस वस्तुनिष्ठ निर्लिप्त भाव की उसे स्वयं राजनैतिक हानि उठा कर रक्षा करनी पड़े। यह उत्तरदायित्व उस पर उसी पौराणिक परपिता ने दिया है जिसके एक हाथ में लेखनी, एक में वेद, एक में पाश और एक में दंड है। धर्म ही उसका मार्ग है, संरक्षक है, नियति है।  

पद्म पुराण के अनुसार, एक समय जब त्रुटि वश हुई असामयिक मृत्यु से विचलित हुए ब्रह्मा ने तपस्या की तब उनके शरीर अर्थात् काया से एक देव की उत्पत्ति हुई जिन्हें तब तक ब्रह्मा की छवि अथवा चित्र में गुप्त रहने के कारण चित्रगुप्त नामकरण किया गया। चित्रगुप्त वर्ण-वर्ग के लोभ मोह से मुक्त विचारक हैं और समाज के नैतिक संतुलन एवं संचालन के लिए आवश्यक हैं। वर्तमान काल में प्रशासन से जिस नीतिगत निष्पक्षता का आग्रह रखा जाता है, वही कायस्थ कुल का चिन्ह रहा है। एक अन्य पौराणिक विवरण में कायस्थ कुल का प्रारम्भ चंद्रवंशीय क्षत्रिय राजा से जोड़ा जाता है। स्कंद पुराण के अनुसार जब परशुराम को अपनी प्रतिज्ञा की पूर्ति के लिए राजा चन्द्रसेन की की गर्भवती पत्नी को ढूँढते ऋषि दुर्लभ्य के पास पहुँचते हैं। ऋषि दुर्लभ्य राजा चन्द्रसेन के पुत्र, जो कि माता की काया में स्थित थे, उनका जीवन दान परशुराम जी इस इस वचन पर माँग लेते हैं कि उनके पुत्र खड्ग के स्थान पर लेखनी का उपयोग करेंगे। उनकी संतानें ही इस मान्यता के अनुसार कायस्थ हुए, और आगे चंद्र (चेनाब) नदी की घाटी से कश्मीर पहुँच कर  श्रीनगर के शासक हुए। इन्हीं के वंशज कालांतर में महाराष्ट्र पहुँच कर प्रभु कायस्थ कहलाए। पद्म पुराण की परिकल्पना के अनुसार, श्री चित्रगुप्त महाराज का विवाह ऋषि धर्म शर्मा की पुत्री इरावती एवं सूर्य पुत्र मनु की पुत्री सुदक्षिणा से हुआ। उनके पुत्रों को क्षात्र धर्म की ओर जा कर प्रतापी शासक बनाने का प्रस्ताव ब्रह्मा ने किया। श्री चित्रगुप्त ने राजकीय सत्ता की अस्थिरता एवं राजनैतिक नेतृत्व से जुड़े पापों का वास्ता दे कर अपने पुत्रों के लिए तलवार के स्थान पर लेखनी के मार्ग से बौद्धिक नेतृत्व का चयन किया। दोनो ही कथाओं के अनुसार हिंसा के स्थान पर विद्या एवं ज्ञान का प्रभावी अस्त्र के रूप में चयन कायस्थों के स्वैच्छिक निर्णय बताया गया है।

पौराणिक संदर्भो से ऐतिहासिक संदर्भों की ओर मुड़ें तो वल्लभी (गुजरात) के शासक सिलादित्य सातवीं सदी के अभिलेखों में स्वयं को कायस्थ बताते हैं। इन अभिलेखों में कायस्थों को भगवान शिव की काया से उत्पन्न बताया गया है।बंगाल के गौर कायस्थ महाभारत के भागदत्त, जिन्होंने दुर्योधन की ओर से युद्ध में भाग लिया था, उनसे अपना सम्बन्ध बताते हैं। इसी वंशवृक्ष से सेना साम्राज्य को जोड़ा जाता है, जिसका अंत बख़्तियार ख़िलजी के आक्रमण के साथ हुआ। चौथी शताब्दी ईसा पूर्व में चाणक्य के अर्थ शास्त्र में लेखक का विवरण अमात्य के गुणों से सम्पन्न, सामाजिक मर्यादाओं के प्रति सजग, लेखन -वाचन-समर्थ  के रूप में किया गया है। मान्यता है कि ऐसे गुणों से सम्पन्न व्यक्तियों या शासकीय अधिकारियों को कायस्थ कहा जाता था। कौटिल्य अर्थशास्त्र में प्रथम-कायस्थ नामक व्यक्ति का ज़िक्र आता है। १२वीं सदी के चंदेल अभिलेखों (अजयगढ़ के ताम्रपत्र) में भी सम्पन्न प्रशासनिक अधिकारियों के रूप में कार्यरत कायस्थों का ज़िक्र आता है। १७२ शताब्दी में हम बौध ताम्रपत्रों में कायस्थ श्रमण का चित्रण पाते हैं। नाटक मृच्छकटिकम में कायस्थ एवं श्रेष्ठी को हम न्यायाधीश के साथ न्याय सभा में पाते हैं, जो कायस्थ समाज के कुलीन सामाजिक अस्तित्व के विषय में बताता है।

कायस्थ समाज की उपजातियाँ महाराज चित्रगुप्त के पौत्रों से जोड़ी जाती हैं, जिन्होंने ने इरावती के आठ पुत्रों - चारु, सुचारु, चित्राक्ष, मतिमान, हनुमान, चित्रचारु, चारुणा, जितेंद्रिय - तथा सुदक्षिणा की चार संतानों- चित्रभानु, विभानु, विश्वभानु एवं वृजभानु से आगे संतति को बढ़ाया। इस धारा के अनुसार श्रीवास्तव शासक जिन्हें मगध सम्राट ने महाराजाधिराज की उपाधि दी, सक्सेना उपजाति के साथ श्रीनगर से निकले। भटनागर जो चित्रभानु की संतति थे, वे भटनेर से निकले जहाँ उनकी राजधानी रही। अम्बष्ट इरावती-पुत्र हनुमान की संतानों ने गिरनार पर्वत पर गढ़ बनाया और अम्बा देवी के भक्त होने के कारण इस नाम से जाने गये। अधिकांशतः अंबष्ट चिकित्सा क्षेत्र से जुड़े होते थे परंतु महाभारत में और सिकंदर की सेना के समक्ष भी अंबष्ट सेना के होने के संदर्भ मिलते हैं। इसी प्रकार मथुरा से निकले माथुर, सूर्यध्वज, जितेंद्रिय- पुत्र कुलश्रेष्ठ, निगम आदि कुल मिलाकर ग्यारह प्रधान उपजातियाँ मिलती हैं। जिस प्रकार ये समस्त उपजातियाँ अपना इतिहास भारत के भिन्न भिन्न प्रांतों से बताते हैं, विद्वान के राज्य की सीमाओं के बंधन से इतर होने का यह उदाहरण बताती हैं।

‘विद्वतम च नृपत्वम च नैव च तुल्यं कदाचन, स्वदेशे पूज्यते राजा, विद्वान सर्वत्र पूज्यते’ अर्थात्  राजा एवं विद्वान की तुलना अनुचित है क्योंकि राजा अपने देश में ही पूजा जाता है, वहीं विद्वान सर्वत्र सम्मानित होते है। कायस्थों की सफलता में हम इस संस्कृत सुभाषित की सफलता देखते हैं।तलवार से हट कर लेखनी का चयन कायस्थ पूर्वजों के लिए कितना परिपक्व निर्णय रहा यह इसी से स्थापित होता है कि कायस्थों का भिन्न भिन्न क्षेत्रों में आगमन रक्त रंजित ना होकर वहाँ के समाज के लिए सदैव सहज स्वीकार्य रहा। वंशागत रूप से वर्ण व्यवस्था की सफलता भी कायस्थ समाज में पीढ़ी दर पीढ़ी शिक्षा, विज्ञान एवं कला के प्रति प्रतिबद्धता में दिखती है। अपनी जड़ों के प्रति लज्जित ना हो कर, उसके गुणों को परिमार्जित करना प्रत्येक वर्ण को निखारेगा ही, और समाज को भी अपने इतिहास से जोड़ेगा। पहचान की राजनीति के काल में कायस्थ समाज संभवतः स्वयं को राजनैतिक रूप से बहुधा अप्रासंगिक भी पाएगा परंतु विद्या एवं ज्ञान के प्रति श्रद्धा और विद्वता की सार्वभौमिकता कायस्थ समाज की नयी पौध को सफलता के नए आयाम भी देगी।    

कायस्थों के द्विज अस्तित्व को लेकर १८४४ में ३९ बंगाल के ब्राह्मणों, १८५८ में ९० मराठी ब्राह्मणों एवं १८७३ में ९५ काशी के ब्राह्मणों के द्वारा दी गयी व्यवस्थाओं में लिखित रूप से कायस्थों को द्विज घोषित किया गया। द्विज का अर्थ सरल शब्दों में सनातनी दर्शन के अनुसार समझें तो विद्या प्राप्त करने की योग्यता ही है, एक वर्ण की दूसरे वर्ण से वरीयता नहीं है। वर्तमान समाज में पश्चिमी दर्शन के आधार पर आकार लेती सामाजिक विद्वेष फैलाने वाली राजनैतिक पहचान की सोच से इतर समाज के प्रत्येक अंग को अपने में अंगीकार करने वाले कायस्थ समाज के लिए यह कर्तव्य और अधिक महत्वपूर्ण हो जाता है कि अपने पूर्वजों के द्वारा अर्जित शताब्दियों के ज्ञान का उपयोग समाज को बांधने में करे। सनातन के एकीकरण के जिस वृक्ष को कायस्थ महामानवों जैसे स्वामी विवेकानंद, श्री अरबिंदो, मुंशी प्रेमचंद, डॉक्टर राजेंद्र प्रसाद और लाल बहादुर शास्त्री ने वर्ण -जाति की संकुचित सीमाओं को तोड़ कर नव =-पल्लवित किया, उसे हम आगे बढ़ाएँ। कायस्थ इतिहास हमारा विश्वास बने, हमारे पंख बने, हमारी बेड़ियाँ नहीं। यदि विद्या कायस्थ ही को मुक्त नहीं करेगी तो किसे करेगी? यह हमारा कर्तव्य है कि भारत को संविधान देने वाले राजेंद्र बाबू के समान विशाल हृदय रखें और संविधान समिति के अध्यक्ष हो कर भी संविधान के निर्माण के यश पर अधिकार न ठोकें, सुभाष बाबू की भाँति अंग्रेजों से विजित स्वतंत्रता पर एकाधिकार ना जमाएँ। हम श्रीराम की वो अनामी गिलहरियाँ हों जो राष्ट्र और समाज निर्माण में ज्ञान, शिक्षा, कला के पत्थर जोड़ें। उस गौरवशाली सनातन परम्परा की ओर समाज को ले जाए जिसमें वर्ण गौरव जड़ें गहरी करने का साधन हो, दीवारें ऊँची करने का माध्यम नहीं।

 इतिहास का लेखन उसकी विसंगतियों की अनुक्रमिका नहीं वरन उसके समाज के आम रूप से स्वीकृत मान्यताओं एवं उस समाज के जननायकों द्वारा स्थापित मानदंडों के आधार पर होना चाहिए। परंतु जब लेखनी उन हाथों में हो जिनका मंतव्य शोध नहीं एक समाज को लज्जित करना भर हो तो समस्या गहन हो जाती है। जब प्रबुद्ध लोग कलम उठाते हैं और इस उद्देश्य के साथ उठाते हैं कि अप्रासंगिक एवं सदर्भहीन तथ्यों के माध्यम से समाज की वर्ग विभाजक रेखाओं को पुष्ट कर सकें तो हमारा कर्तव्य होता है कि हम सत्य को संदर्भ दें और अपने इतिहास के भले बुरे पक्षों को निर्विकार भाव से जाँचें। 

बीते सप्ताह बाल विवाह को लेकर विदेशी सभ्यता में उठे प्रश्नों को भारत की सभ्यता पर प्रक्षेपित करके और उसकी स्वीकार्यता स्थापित करने पर बड़ी चर्चा रही। इस संदर्भ में  श्री ए एल बाशम से ले कर राजा राम मोहन रॉय तक चर्चा चली। बाशम की पुस्तक द वंडर दैट वाज इंडिया -को उद्धृत कर ले कहा गया कि हिंदू धर्म शास्त्रों में कन्या के बाल विवाह को मान्य कहा गया था परंतु यह आंशिक संदर्भ था। इसमें बाशम ने मनुस्मृति एवं गौतम बौधायन को उद्धृत किया है। यहाँ दो तीन विषयों पर ध्यान देने की आवश्यकता है। 

प्रथम, यह स्थापित है कि मनुस्मृति बौधायन से पूर्व की पुस्तक है। बौधायन में कई जगह मनु का संदर्भ दिया गया है। अतः मूल मानक मनु से ही आने चाहिए। साथ ही मनुस्मृति एवं अन्य भारतीय ग्रंथों में प्रक्षेपों की समस्या रही है। इस कारण से मनु स्मृति को संदर्भ, शैली विरोध एवं विषय विरोध को ध्यान में लेते हुए यह जाँचना आवश्यक है कि कौन से श्लोक मूल रूप से मनुस्मृति से हैं और कौन से बाद के काल में प्रक्षिप्त हुए हैं। विवाह की आयु को ले कर बाशम के द्वारा दिया गया श्लोक उत्तराधिकार के नियमों के अध्याय से आता है। ऐसे खंडों में विद्वानों ने प्रक्षेप और परिवर्तन की सम्भावना बताई है जहाँ सम्पत्ति लोभ में मूल लेख में परिवर्तन किए गए हों। मनुस्मृति में साक्ष्यों के साथ किए गए ऐसे परिवर्तनों पर डॉक्टर सुरेंद्र कुमार की टीका एक बहुत ही प्रामाणिक स्त्रोत है। मनुस्मृति के कुछ श्लोकों में स्वयंभू मनु का संदर्भ है तो कही वैवस्वत मनु का संदर्भ है, इस से स्पष्ट होता है कि स्वयंभू मनु द्वारा रचित मूल मनुस्मृति में समय समय पर परिवर्तन हुए हैं क्योंकि वैवस्वत मनु स्वयंभू मनु से सात पीढ़ियों बाद के काल में आए थे। बाद में उत्तराधिकार के नियमों में कई परिवर्तन हुए। नंद पंडित रचित दत्तक मीमांसा को इसी श्रेणी में रखा जाता है जिसे पहले अंग्रेजों ने प्रामाणिक मान लिया था परंतु बाद में यह दायभाग को लेकर लाया गया क्षेपक सिद्ध हुआ। इसी प्रकार रघुमणि विद्याभूषण द्वारा रचित दत्तक चंद्रिका को भी मनुस्मृति से छेड़ छाड़ माना गया है। 

ऐसी स्थिति में साधारण मनुष्य सत्य किसे माने? तो इसमें मनुस्मृति के मूल श्लोक को बनाए गए श्लोकों के साथ रख के, समाज की प्रामाणिक स्थिति का अध्ययन सत्य को सबसे उत्तम प्रकार से बताता है। दूसरी बात यह है कि क्योंकि हिंदू धर्म रूढ़िवादी एक-पुस्तकवाद निर्देशिका पर आधारित नहीं है, समाज किस भाव को ले कर इतिहास में अपने मानक तय करता है यह श्लोकों की प्रामाणिकता स्थापित करती है, क्योंकि समाज ने अवश्य समय समय पर विभिन्न कारणों से घुसाए गए निर्देशों को स्वीकार नहीं किया होगा। यह एक तार्किक तथ्य है। मनुस्मृति के मूल श्लोक वेदों के भाव से भिन्न नहीं हैं। वेदों से समन्वय भी एक परीक्षण का उपयुक्त मार्ग हो सकता है। 

जैसे कन्या के विवाह की आयु के विषय को देखें तो इस पर मनुस्मृति में बाद में आए परवर्ती श्लोक को उद्धृत किया जाता है जिसके अनुसार बाल विवाह या अल्पायु विवाह का प्रावधान स्थापित करने का प्रयास किया जाता है। परंतु यदि हम मनु के मूल भाव को देखें और वेदों से उसे जोड़ के परखें तो सत्य उद्घाटित हो जाता है। ब्रह्मचर्येण कन्या युवानं विन्दते पतिम् ।। - अर्थात् - ब्रह्मचर्य धर्म के कर्तव्य को पूर्ण करने के पश्चात कन्या पति का चयन करे - अर्थववेद कहते हैं और इसी भाव को मनुस्मृति अपने मूल रूप में आगे बढ़ाता है। वैदिक आयु को सौ वर्ष मानें तो ब्रह्मचर्य की आयु मनु के अनुसार पच्चीस वर्ष होती है। स्त्री की विवाह योग्य आयु के विषय में मनुस्मृति कहती है - 

त्रीणि वर्षान्युदीक्षेत कुमार्युतुमती सती।

ऊर्ध्व तु कालादेतस्माद्विंदेत सदृशम पतिम।।

 

परिपक्वता प्राप्त करने के पश्चात तीन वर्ष प्रतीक्षा करने के उपरांत कन्या पति का वरण कर सकती है। 

सुश्रुत संहिता में वैज्ञानिक एवं चिकित्सकीय विचार उपलब्ध है। यहाँ पुरुष की परिपक्वता की आयु पच्चीस वर्ष और कन्या की परिपक्वता की आयु सोलह वर्ष बताई गयी है जिसके उपरांत ही कन्या विवाह योग्य होती है। 

ऋग्वेद के दशम मंडल के विवाह सूक्त में भी भिन्न भिन्न भावों से कन्या को अनेक रूपों से पार हो कर विवाह के योग्य माना गया है।

सोम : प्रथमो विविदे गंधर्वो विविद उत्तर : ।

तृतीयो अग्निष्टे पतिस्तुरीयस्ते मनुष्यजा : ।।

विवाह योग्य वधू पहले सोम से कैशोर्य प्राप्त करती है, रजोदर्शन द्वारा गृहस्थ पालन की शक्ति प्राप्त करती है और फिर यौवन की ऊष्मा प्राप्त करती है उसके उपरांत पति उसे प्राप्त करता है। 

बाशम अपने जिस कथन में बोधायन का ज़िक्र करते हैं, जहाँ उत्तराधिकार वाले अध्याय में कन्या के पति से एक तिहाई आयु होने की बात है, वहीं ठीक उसके ऊपर के श्लोक में मनु के परिपक्वता और उसके बाद तीन वर्ष प्रतीक्षा की बात लिखित है। बाद के श्लोकों में मतांतर उनके प्रक्षिप्त होने की सम्भावना बताता है। 

अब यदि हम संभावनाओं और क़यासों से हट कर वैदिक समाज में विवाह का सत्य स्वयं बाशम की पुस्तक में ही देखते हैं तो समझ सकते हैं कि मनु के वास्तविक शब्द और देवाहुति का विवाह प्रसंग इन मिथ्याप्रचारों की कलई खोल के यह बताता है कि वास्तव में हिंदू समाज के विदेशी आक्रमण के पूर्व बाल विवाह के प्रति क्या विचार थे। बाशम जहाँ पहले भी इस विषय में चर्चा इस वाक्य से करते हैं - हालाँकि प्रारंभिक समय में भारत में यह प्रचलित प्रथा थी कि विवाह के पूर्व कन्या पूर्णतया परिपक्व हो। आगे भी वे लिखते हैं कि दोनों ही पक्षों में बाल विवाह, जो बाद के समय में धनी परिवारों में प्रचलित होने लगा, उसका धार्मिक साहित्य में कोई स्थान नहीं था, और यह संदेहजनक है कि मध्य युग के आने तक भारत में ऐसी किसी प्रथा का प्रचलन था (बाशम, पृष्ठ संख्या १६७)। 

बाशम आगे यह भी लिखते हैं कि बहुतों का ऐसा अनुमान है कि आततायी मुसलमानों के आने के कारण संभवतः भारतीयों में इस प्रथा को बल मिला हो। यहाँ बाशम यह कहने से बचते हैं कि आक्रामक सेना उस संस्कृति को साथ ले कर आयी थी जहाँ बालिकाओं को भी उपभोग की वस्तु मानना क़बीलाई इतिहास का अंग था और उनकी दूषित दृष्टि से बचाने के लिए संभवत: यह प्रथा भारत में उभरी हो। आज के भारत में जो बुद्धिजीवी भारतीय एक स्वस्थ परम्परा का एक हिसंक संस्कृति से समन्वयीकरण करने की होड़ में तथ्य को तोड़ रहे हैं उन्हें इतिहास को अपने पूर्वाग्रह किनारे रख के पढ़ना चाहिए।

इनके मूल ग्रंथों में ना होने की सत्यता इससे भी दिखती है कि समाज में इसका प्रतिबिम्ब प्रत्येक दुष्प्रचार के बाद भी नहीं दिखता। सन १८९४ में प्रकाशित प्रमथ नाथ बोस की ब्रिटिश साम्राज्य में हिंदू सभ्यता, भाग -२ के अकाट्य तथ्यों में यह सत्य परिलक्षित होता है कि भारत के नैतिक मूल्यों ने बाल विवाह को एक समाज के रूप में कभी स्वीकार नहीं किया। १८९१ के सर्वेक्षण के अनुसार प्रत्येक १००० बालकों में से २६ बालक और कन्यायों में से मात्र ७६ दस वर्ष की आयु में विवाहित थे। हिंदू संगठन आर्य समाज १८९४ में बाल विवाह के विरोध में मुखर हो चुका था। १८९० में बंगाल में कन्सेंट ऐक्ट पारित हुआ जिसमें विवाह की आयु १२ वर्ष की गई। छठवें समाज सुधार सभा के अधिवेशन में कन्या की विवाह की आयु १४ वर्ष करने के पक्ष में प्रस्ताव पारित हुआ। पूना में १८९१ में हुई सभा में हिंदुओं ने बाल विवाह के विरोध में शपथ ली। इस सभा में १२५८ ब्राह्मण, १२६ कायस्थ और क्षत्रिय, ३३ वैश्य, ६० मराठा थे। बड़ोदा महाजन सभा ने १८९२ में बाल विवाह के विरोध में प्रस्ताव पारित किया। 

हिंदुओं में इन सुधारों के लिए स्वतःस्फूर्त प्रयास निरंतर होते रहे। १९२७ में श्री हरि सिंह गौर ने विवाह की आयु को बढ़ाने का प्रयास किया। इसके पश्चात सर मोरोपंत जोशी की अध्यक्षता में जोशी कमिटी की स्थापना १९२८ में हुई। इसी कमिटी के सुझावों के अनुरूप १९२७ में प्रस्तुत सारदा ऐक्ट १ अक्तूबर १९२९ को ६७ समर्थक मतों से पास हुआ। यह ऐक्ट बड़े स्पष्ट रूप से विफल हुआ। ४५% हिंदू बालिका वधुओं के समक्ष ३८ प्रतिशत मुस्लिम कन्या वधुओं के बावजूद इस एक्ट को हिंदुओं पर ही लागू किया गया। सजा का प्रावधान बहुत कठिन था। बिना शिकायत कार्यवाही का प्रावधान नहीं था। १९३७ में शरिया ऐक्ट पास हुआ जिसके तहत मुस्लिम समाज को इस क़ानून के दायरे से बाहर रखा गया। कन्या की विवाह की आयु १९४९ में बढ़ा कर १५ वर्ष कर दी गई और १९७८ में १८ कर दी गई। २००६ में बाल विवाह उन्मूलन क़ानून पारित हुआ। किन्ही कारणों से यह भी प्रचारित किया गया कि भारत में बाल विवाह के विरोध में सुधारवादी आंदोलन राजा राम मोहन रॉय ने चलाया। तथ्य यह है की राजा राम मोहन रॉय की मृत्यु १८३३ में हुई थी और जिस सती प्रथा के विरोध के नाम पर उन्होंने हिंदू धर्म और मूर्ति पूजा का विरोध किया उसकी ना तो वेदों में स्वीकृति थी ना ही उनके समय प्रचलन था। राममोहन रॉय के हिंदू विरोध के विषय में स्वामी विवेकानंद ने भी लिखा है इसी कारण वे वर्तमान में हिंदू विरोधियों के अत्यंत प्रिय हैं। यह इस प्रश्न के तथ्य हैं कि हिंदू समाज में और हिंदू धर्म में बाल विवाह की स्वीकार्यता थी। हिंदू धर्म में बाल विवाह की मान्यता नहीं थी, बाल विवाह आक्रांताओं के आने के बाद बढ़ा और इसका विरोध हिंदू समाज के अंदर से ही मुखर हुआ। बाल विवाह होते थे यह तथ्य है परंतु यह उसी प्रकार का तथ्य है जैसे अमेरिका में आज स्कूलों में हत्या के प्रकरण जिनका अर्थ यह बिलकुल नहीं है कि आज से सौ वर्ष बाद यह पढ़ा जाए कि इक्कीसवीं सदि में अमरीका में विद्यालयों में बच्चों की हत्या की धार्मिक परम्परा थी। इतिहास के तथ्य वर्तमान की दिशा दे सकते हैं यदि हम उन्हें दुर्भावना के साथ ना पढ़ें और सत्य का निष्पेक्ष अन्वेषण करें।

किसी भी सभ्यता के विध्वंस का कारण उसके समाज का अपने ही इतिहास से विमुख हो जाना है। जब तक एक समाज अपने इतिहास के प्रति सजग रहता है, उसके लिए पतन के गर्त से अपने अतीत की महानता के भाव को पुनर्जीवित करने की सम्भावना जीवित रहती है। संस्कृति के इस पुनर्जीवन के की प्रक्रिया में समाज के विचारकों का बहुत हाथ रहता है। इसी वैचारिक स्थितप्रज्ञता ने भारत को कई शताब्दियों के क्रूर विदेशी आधिपत्य के मध्य भी जीवित और जीवंत रखा। राजनैतिक पराभव को सांस्कृतिक पराभव में परिवर्तित करने का सर्वाधिक प्रयास भारत की राजनैतिक स्वाधीनता के पश्चात ही हुआ, यह एक विडम्बना रही है। 

ऐसा नहीं है कि १९४७ के पश्चात भारतीय इतिहास के विषय में लिखा नहीं गया, परंतु एक हीनता, एक पराभव के बोध के साथ और बहुधा एक स्पष्ट सी वितृष्णा और उदासीनता के साथ लिखा गया। भारतीयों के मन मस्तिष्क में एक ऐसी लज्जा को भर दिया गया कि जो सभ्यता विदेशी इस्लामी अतिक्रमण के विरुद्ध कोई ६ से ७ शताब्दियों तक लड़ती रही वह ऐसे आत्मनिंदा में खो गई जैसी आत्मनिंदा  मात्र ७० वर्षों में ढह गई स्पेन की सभ्यता में भी कभी ना देखी गई । औरंगज़ेब काल में जिस इस्लामिक विस्तारवाद ने सांस्कृतिक विध्वंस का खेल सम्पूर्ण विश्व में खेल जहाँ पारस या ईरान में कोई पारसी ना बचा, उसने भारत में घड़ी भर को पाँव पसारा ही था कि दक्कन में शिवाजी का हिंदवी साम्राज्य ऐसा उठा की अटक से कटक तक मुग़लों की क्षणिक सम्प्रभुता को हिला कर चला गया। भारतीयों के आत्मविश्वास को हिलाने में स्वतंत्र के उपरांत के उन इतिहासकारों का बड़ा हाथ रहा है, जो इतिहासकार कम, नेहरू चारण मंडल के सदस्य अधिक थे। भारतीय वैचारिक धारा के परिचायक कांग्रेसी नेताओं को, जैसे तिलक, मदन मोहन मालवीय, लाला लाजपत राय, बिपिन चंद्र पाल जैसे महामानवों को भी एक व्यक्तिवादी महिमामंडन की होड़ में जैसे औद्योगिक स्तर पर उपेक्षित किया गया उसमें कांग्रेस से बाहर के राष्ट्रवादियों के लिए आशा ही क्या थी। समय के साथ जैसे जैसे कांग्रेस नेतृत्व अधिक से अधिक भारत से काटता चला गया, उपेक्षित नेता एवं क्रांतिकारी नायकों को खलनायक तक बताने की होड़ लगी रही। 

ऐसी उदासीनता के समय में संस्कृति को पुनर्जीवित करने का उत्तरदायित्व व्यावसायिक उद्देश्यों एवं राजनैतिक प्रतिबद्धताओं से मुक्त शोधकर्ताओं एवं लेखकों जैसे डॉक्टर मनीष श्रीवास्तव पर आ जाता है। जब क्रांतिदूत जैसी प्रस्तुति हाथ में आती है तो मानो अतीत के उपेक्षित दर्पण से धूल मिटती दिखती है और भारत के भविष्य की छवि सुरक्षित और स्पष्ट दिखती है। आज जब अपने ही इतिहास के राष्ट्रीय नायकों से अनभिज्ञ देश का युवा चे गुआवेरा के पोस्टर लिए घूम रहा है तब  मात्र १५० पृष्ठों की क्रांतिदूत को पढ़ते हुए भान होता है मानो मनीष जैसे लेखक श्रीराम की सेना की वह गिलहरी हैं जो भारत के अतीत एवं भविष्य को जोड़ने वाले रामसेतु के निर्माण में लगे हों। 

क्रांतिकारी साहित्य बहुत लिखा गया है, स्वयं बिस्मिल जैसे क्रांतिकारियों ने उत्कृष्ट लेखन से अपने युग के इतिहास को अपने लेखन में जीवित किया है, वहीं गणेश शंकर विद्यार्थी, मन्मनाथ गुप्त, शचींद्रनाथ सान्याल आदि ने बहुत लिखा है जिसमें स्वतंत्रता पूर्व के समय का वास्तविक प्रतिबिम्ब देखने को मिलता है। इन पुस्तकों में क्रांतिकारियों की राष्ट्र की स्वतंत्रता के प्रति परिपक्व प्रतिबद्धता परिलक्षित होती है वहीं कांग्रेस की ढुलमुल रवैया भी सार्वजनिक होता है। इस प्रकार के प्रश्न भी पाठकों के मन में उठते हैं कि यदि ब्रिटिश सरकार के विरुद्ध गतिविधियों के कारण दतिया के राजा की सम्पत्ति अंग्रेज सरकार अधिग्रहीत कर लेती है तो वही सरकार कांग्रेस के नेतृत्व के प्रति ऐसा स्नेह का व्यवहार कैसे बनाए रखती है कि ३२ शयनकक्षों, दो तरणताल वाले उनके आवास ब्रिटिश संरक्षण में फलते फूलते रहते हैं। ऐसे प्रश्नों से, ऐसी जिज्ञासाओं से नेतृत्व को बचाने के लिए सरल हमारे नेताओं को यह लगा कि यह प्रसंग ही हाशिए पर धकेल दिए जाएँ। 

क्रांतिदूत के पुस्तक ऋंखला है जो स्वतंत्रता संग्राम के उन्हीं छूटे हुए पक्षों को बताने का प्रयास करती है। लेखक के अनुसार, प्रत्येक माह इस ऋंखला की एक पुस्तक सामने लाने की योजना है। इस क्रम में झाँसी फ़ाइल्ज़ पहली पुस्तक है और इस समीक्षा के लिखने तक दूसरी पुस्तक काशी फ़ाइल्ज़ भी वितरण में आ चुकी है। मनीष की इसके पूर्व की रचनाएँ- रूही, एवं मैन मुन्ना हूँ-  तथ्य और कल्पना की काटती हुई सीमाओं पर लिखी गई थी, वहीं यह पुस्तक ऐतिहासिक तथ्यों पर आधारित है, परंतु लेखक के भीतर का कथाकार उसके इतिहासकार को नीरस नहीं होने देता है और इस ऐतिहासिक पुस्तक को एक पठनीय मानवीय कथा का रूप देता है। 

लेखक की कथाओं की एक शैली है, जो उनकी प्रत्येक पुस्तक में दिखती है, वह है पुस्तक का दैनंदिनी का रूप। मनीष की पुस्तकें समय -काल का धागा पकड़ के चलती हैं और झाँसी फ़ाइल्ज़ में भी यही शैली दिखती है जब प्रस्तावना ‘अचानक’ शीर्षक के अध्याय से २२  जून १९८१ को झाँसी के निकट सातार नदी के तट पर प्रारम्भ होती है। 

पुस्तक का प्रारम्भ काकोरी कांड से होता है, जिसमें सशस्त्र स्वतंत्रता आंदोलन के लिए हथियारों के क्रय के लिए राम प्रसाद बिस्मिल के नेतृत्व में चंद्र्शेखर आज़ाद, अश्फ़ाक आदि क्रांतिकारी ब्रिटिश कोषागार के लिए जा रहे धन को लूटते हैं। इसके परिपेक्ष्य में ब्रिटिश मैत्री और संरक्षण में फलते फूलते कांग्रेस आंदोलन के समानांतर पूर्ण स्वराज्य के लिए अपने जीवन को दांव पर लगा कर लड़ रहे साधनहीन क्रांतिकारियों की स्थिति का संक्षिप्त विवरण है। उस साधनहीनता, उस अभावग्रस्त अभियान और उसके मार्ग में अनेकानेक विश्वासघात की घटनाओं के विषय में बिस्मिल ने अपनी आत्मकथा में लिखा है। उस आत्मकथा में आज़ाद के विषय में अधिक लिखा नहीं गया है, सम्भवतः आज़ाद उस समय छोटे थे और बिस्मिल के लिए बालक के समान थे अथवा आज़ाद की भविष्य की भूमिका को लेकर बिस्मिल उन्हें प्रचार से दूर रखना चाहते थे ताकि जनता और ब्रिटिश पुलिस की दृष्टि से आज़ाद बचे रहे। कथा संक्षेप में काकोरी कांड का विवरण देती है और उसके बाद के चंद्रशेखर आज़ाद के अज्ञातवास के काल के विषय में चर्चा करती है। 

यह कथा, जैसा नाम से विदित है, चंद्रशेखर आज़ाद के झाँसी प्रवास के काल का विवरण देती है जब आज़ाद एक हनुमान भक्त सन्यासी के रूप में ब्रिटिश सरकार से बचे हुए उसी नदी के तट पर अपना आश्रम बनाते हैं जहाँ से लेखक इस कथा को प्रारम्भ  देते हैं। इस प्रवास काल के विवरण में हम अन्य नायकों से मिलते हैं, जैसे विश्वनाथ वैशम्पायन जी, भगवानदास माहौर और सदाशिवराव मलकापुरकर। कथा का सबसे सशक्त भाग इसका कथा रूप है जो कथा में प्रवाह और विश्वसनीयता दोनो बनाए रखता है (यदि पुस्तक के अंत में दी गई संदर्भों की सूची पाठक के लिए विश्वसनीयता परखने को पर्याप्त न हो तो)। ऐतिहासिक चरित्रों को आम भाषा में वो भी ग्रामीण बुंदेलखंडी में बात करते देखना बड़ा ही सुखद है। भाषा और लेखन के इस पक्ष का एक लाभ यह भी है कि पाठक चरित्रों से स्वयं को जुड़ा मानता है। इसी भाषा के प्रवाह और तथ्यों के समन्वय से पुस्तक एक भिन्न स्वरूप ले लेती है और अत्यंत ही पठनीय हो जाती है। पुस्तक मात्र ११० पन्नों की है और सरलता से पढ़ी जा सकती है। पुस्तक के जिल्द पर कई समीक्षकों ने लिखा है, सो वह प्रकाशक का उत्तरदायित्व है, उत्तम कथा तो शताब्दियों तक ताड़ पत्रों पर भी पढ़ी गयी है। समस्या मेरी प्रति में भी हो सकती है, अन्यथा पुस्तक के महत्व को देखते हुए प्रकाशक इस पर ध्यान दे सकते हैं। कथा में लखनऊ कांग्रेस स्वागत समिति के अध्यक्ष और क्रांतिकारियों के विरुद्ध ब्रिटिश गवाह बने बनारसीदास का ज़िक्र है परंतु कांग्रेस के ही जगतनारायण मुल्ला जो अंग्रेजों के काकोरी कांड में वकील थे और क्रांतिकारियों को मृत्युदंड दिलवाने में प्रमुख थे, उनका नाम इसमें नहीं है। सम्भवतः उनका नाम बिस्मिल ने भी अपनी आत्मकथा में नहीं किया है, यह कारण हो सकता है। मुझे यह पुस्तक पढ़ने के बाद अधिक पढ़ने का लोभ रहा, जैसे बिस्मिल के अभिभावकत्व में आज़ाद का बड़ा होना, आज़ाद का मुंबई प्रवास और होटेल में बाल श्रमिक हो के कार्य करना, आज़ाद के नामकरण का प्रसिद्ध बेंतों वाला प्रकरण और झाँसी के बाद का काल, यशपाल से मतभेद आदि। ब्रह्मचारी रूप में प्रवास काल में एक कन्या का प्रसंग कुछ विसंगत सा महसूस हुआ, सम्भवतः इस विषय में मेरा अल्पज्ञान इसका कारण रहा हो। कथा के अनुरूप इस प्रसंग का ध्येय आज़ाद का ब्रह्मचारी जीवन में खो जाने के तथ्य जो स्थापित करना हो सकता है। इस पुस्तक का मूल जैसा कि नाम से विदित है, झाँसी ही है, अतः मास्टर रुद्रनारायण का व्यक्तित्व, आज़ाद के प्रवास में उनकी महती भूमिका और उनका आज़ाद से सम्बंध इस पुस्तक के केंद्र में रहा है। एक पुस्तक जितना संतुष्ट करती है उसी अनुपात में पाठक को अधिक पढ़ने के लिए प्रेरित करती है, यही लेखक की सफलता है। भारत के क्रांतिकारी स्वातंत्र्य संग्राम के इतिहास के ओर पाठक की जिज्ञासा को जागृत करने के लिए डॉक्टर मनीष को साधुवाद। पुस्तक अमेजन और पढ़ेगा इंडिया जैसे विक्रय माध्यमों पर उपलब्ध है।     

Amazon Link: Click Here

 दण्ड: शास्ति प्रजा: सर्वा दण्ड एवाभिरक्षति।

दण्ड: सुप्तेषु जागर्ति दंडम धर्म विदुर्बुधा: ।। - मनु स्मृति 

‘वास्तव में दण्ड ही प्रजा पर शासन करता है, दण्ड ही प्रजा की रक्षा करता है, जब प्रजा सोती है, दण्ड ही जागृत रहता है, इसी कारण विद्वान दण्ड को ही राजा का प्रमुख कार्य मानते हैं।’ 

मनु स्मृति का यह श्लोक मानव सभ्यता के प्रारम्भिक काल में लिखा गया और आज भी उतना ही सामयिक है जितना शताब्दियों पूर्व था। जिस समाज में आम नागरिक अपनी सुरक्षा के प्रति निश्चिंत होता है और स्वयं शस्त्र नहीं धारण करता है, वह समाज सशक्त शासन के लिए जाना जाता है, जहाँ सत्ता प्रजा के सबसे निर्बल व्यक्ति के अस्तित्व एवं अधिकार के लिए कर्मशील हो। समाज में शासन और शासित का विभाजन इसी मूल सहमति के आधार पर निर्मित होता है और पश्चिम से आयातित सभ्यताओं को छोड़ दें तो एक सुसंस्कृत समाज में प्रत्येक आम नागरिक सैनिक नहीं होता है। 

वर्तमान में एक बुलडोज़र न्याय चर्चा में है और उत्तरप्रदेश में माफिया के विरोध में प्रमुखता से उपयोग की गयी यह न्याय व्यवस्था जब दंगों के उत्तर में अन्य राज्यों में प्रयुक्त हो रही है तो तुष्टिकरण की नीति का लाभार्थी रहा धार्मिक समुदाय इसके निशाने पर आ रहा है। ऐसे में जब रामनवमी तथा हनुमान जयंती की शोभा यात्राओं पर मुस्लिम-बहुल क्षेत्रों में हुए पथराव और हिंसक आक्रमणों के प्रत्युत्तर में शासन द्वारा इस व्यवस्था को मध्य प्रदेश के खरगौन और दिल्ली के जहाँगीरपुरी में उतारा गया तो राष्ट्रीय पटल पर सर्वोच्च न्यायालय में पहुँचने के साथ प्रस्तुत हुआ। 

दिल्ली में हनुमान जयंती की शोभा यात्रा पर एक हिंसक भीड़ का आक्रमण हुआ, और इसके पक्ष में बड़ी दलीलें दी गयीं। एक तर्क यह था कि शोभा यात्रा की प्रशासन से अनुमति नहीं ली गई थी। समय के साथ पहले तो यह तथ्यात्मक रूप से ग़लत निकला, क्योंकि हिंदू समुदाय ने इस यात्रा की विधिवत स्थानीय पुलिस से अनुमति ली थी, परंतु स्थानीय थाना मुख्यालय को इसकी सूचना समय पर नहीं दे पाया इसके कारण ना सिर्फ़ यात्रा और हिंदू समुदाय पर आरोप लगे, इस हिंसक आक्रमण को न्यायसंगत सिद्ध करने का प्रयास किया गया मानो दिल्ली में क़ानून व्यवस्था बनाए रखने का उत्तरदायित्व जहांगीरपुरी के अल्प-संख्यक समुदाय पर हो और प्रत्येक अवैध जुलूस को प्रतिबंधित करने के लिए पुलिस को नहीं जहांगीरपुरी की मस्जिद के इमाम को संविधान के द्वारा उत्तरदायी बनाया गया हो। 

इस हिंसक झड़प के दूसरे दिन जहांगीरपुरी में बुलडोज़र उतरे, और शरारतपूर्ण रूप से पहले से फैलाए गए शासकीय आदेश को इस प्रकार प्रचारित किया गया मानो अनाधिकृत निर्माण के विरुद्ध हुई यह कार्यवाही हिंदू-विरोधी दंगों के विरोध में हो रही हो। जैसे जैसे सत्य उद्घाटित होता चला गया, यह भी प्रकट होता चला गया कि उत्तरप्रदेश में दंगों और आपराधिक माफिया के विरुद्ध हुई कार्यवाही से इतर दिल्ली में बुलडोज़र कांड एक सुप्त प्रशासनिक व्यवस्था, जिसमें एक कबाड़ और कथित रूप से सट्टे का कारोबारी अंसार पाँच मंज़िला भवन खड़ा कर लेता है, एक दंगे की भूमिका में पूरी तरह से निर्वस्त्र हो चुकने के बाद अपनी छवि को बचाने का प्रयास करती है। जहांगीरपुरी के बुलडोजर मस्जिद के बाहर की दीवार और मंदिर के बाहर के गेट के साथ कुछ छिटपुट छज्जे और ठेले हटा पाते हैं। न्यायालय में कांग्रेस समर्थित वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ताओं का समूह, प्रशांत भूषण, दुष्यंत दवे और कपिल सिबल के साथ मिल के १०:३० बजे उस न्यायालय में अपना मामला सूचीबद्ध करा पाते हैं जो सर्वोच्च न्यायालय पश्चिम बंगाल में चुनाव के बाद सत्तारूढ़ पार्टी की हिंसा के मामले को समयाभाव के कारण संज्ञान में नहीं ले पाता है। दस मिनट की सुनवाई में न्यायालय अवैध निर्माण के विरोध में हुई प्रशासनिक कार्यवाही पर रोक लगा देता है। चलता हुआ बुलडोज़र गुप्ता जी और झा जी की दुकानों को रौंद के शांत हो जाता है। प्रशासन को पुनः चार चार, पाँच पाँच तलों के भवन दिखने बंद हो जाते हैं। जिन अनाधिकृत क़ब्ज़ाधारकों के घरों तक प्रशासन नहीं पहुँच पाता, उनकी क़ानून को जेब में रखने की छवि और अधिक बल पाती है। अपराध के विरोध में सत्ता के ग़ैर -अनुपातिक कोप का जो भय हज़ारों की संख्या में सड़क पर उतरने वाली भीड़ पर पड़ना चाहिए वो उन छह -सात लोगों जैसे सलीम शेख़, अंसार, गुल्फ़ाम आदि को पुलिस की पकड़ में पहुँचाता है जिनके लिए अदालत और पुलिस के चक्कर सामान्य जीवन के अंग हैं। शीघ्र ही ज़मानत पा कर दिल्ली में सत्ता में बैठी पार्टी का कार्यकर्ता अंसार दोबारा अपने धंधों में लग जाएगा, अवैध शरणार्थियों की नागरिकता के प्रमाण तैयार कराएगा, क्योंकि वह एक विस्तृत तंत्र का छोटा सा पुर्ज़ा मात्र है। वह उस तंत्र का भाग है जो चार वर्ष की बच्ची के हत्यारे के भविष्य के प्रति आशावान है, जो आम आदमी पार्टी के कार्यकर्ता इरफ़ान को हीरा गुजराती की बहन के बलात्कार के आरोप में ज़मानत दे देता है और दिन दहाड़े इरफ़ान एक पीड़ित, दलित भाई की हत्या कर देता है। 

लोकतंत्र में राजा एक व्यक्ति नहीं है, एक व्यवस्था है जिसमें न्यायपालिका, कार्यपालिका और राजनैतिक नेतृत्व आता है। इन तीनों में से एक की भी कमी से प्रशासनिक दंड खोखला हो जाता है। लोकतंत्र के इन तीनों अंगों में मनुष्य ही हैं, जो उस मनुष्य से भिन्न नहीं है जो ठेला खींचता हैं, जो शिक्षा देता है, जो लेख लिखता है, जो घरों की रसोइयों में भोजन की व्यवस्था करता है, बसें चलाता है। वह अपनी सुरक्षा इन लोगों के सुपुर्द विश्वास के आधार पर करता है। जब इन तीनों में से कोई अंग असंतुलित होता है, जनता सशंकित हो जाती है। जब न्यायालय भिन्न मामलों को अलग अलग दृष्टि से देखता है तो उसमें एक चिंतित कर देने वाली स्वेच्छाचारिता परिलक्षित होती है। जब पुलिस अपने कार्य में सतर्क नहीं होती है, उचित या अनुचित कारणों से, तो न्याय के विचित्र साधन प्रकट होते हैं। न्याय व्यवस्था के साधन के रूप में बुलडोज़र का चलना और उसका विद्युत गति से रुक जाना, दोनो ही तंत्र की विफलता का सूचक है। ऐसे साधन की आवश्यकता तब ही होती है जब अंसार का पाँच तल्ले का मकान बिना प्रशासन और पुलिस को दिखे खड़ा हो जाता है और उसे इतना दुस्साहसी बना देता है कि वह अन्य धार्मिक उपक्रमों के प्रति असहिष्णु हो उठता है। यदि वह एक मंज़िल के घर में किराए पर होता और अपनी योग्यता के अनुसार वैध मार्गों से जीविकोपार्जन करता तो उसमें प्रशासन को धता बताने का साहस ही ना होता। सहसा उठाए गए प्रयासों से समाचार पत्र तो भर सकते हैं परंतु एक सहज नैतिक और न्यायिक व्यवस्था के खोखलेपन को ऐसे कदम भर नहीं सकते। न्याय के लिए सबसे हानिकारक विवेकहीनता और स्वेच्छाचारिता है। यदि शोभा यात्रा अवैध भी रही हो तो जिस राष्ट्रीय राजधानी ने वर्षों तक सड़कें रोक कर बैठे अवैध प्रदर्शन असहाय अदालतों और मौन प्रशासन के सामने देखे हों, वह एक दिन की शोभा यात्रा पर  न्यायपालिका के बदले हुए तेवर ना समझ सकेगा ना स्वीकार कर सकेगा। विकास एवं प्रगति की अंतिम रेखा पर खड़े अंतिम व्यक्ति के विश्वास के बिना ना सरकार का कोई अर्थ है ना ही न्यायपालिका का। यह सरकार, न्यायपालिका और प्रशासन के लिए आत्मावलोकन का अवसर है। बुलडोज़र उस बीमार हुए पौधे का सड़ा हुआ फल है जिसकी जड़ें गल चुकी हैं। जड़ों की चिकित्सा के बिना समाज ना सुरक्षित हो सकता है ना ही विकसित। शासित की सुरक्षा के लिए शासक का दंड का निष्पक्ष और सशक्त होना आवश्यक है। इसी मूलभूत समझ पर के सभ्य समाज खड़ा रहता है। अरस्तू के अनुसार - केवल वह शासन स्थिर है जिसमें न्याय के समक्ष प्रत्येक व्यक्ति समान है। शासन सतर्क हो तथा भय एवं लोभ के बिना कार्य करे तो ही भारत सुरक्षित होगा। बुलडोज़र न्याय-व्यवस्था के अभावों का विकल्प नहीं है। उत्तरप्रदेश में बुलडोज़र का उद्देश्य एवं परिणाम दिल्ली में बुलडोज़र के उपयोग से भिन्न है। 

For last week or so, New York Times has been desperately seeking first hand account of those who were in Inter-faith relations in India. A news medium is usually supposed to pursue the news, not create them. In this case, NYT first made up its mind that it needs to write on Inter-faith marriages in India and somehow create a narrative how poor and innocent Muslim men are falling prey to the belligerent, bigoted Hindus who are not allowing their women live with those they love. Having decided the line of argument, they set about creating the articles and two initial Essays have come up- Are You in an Interfaith Relationship in India? and another How New Laws Across India are Seeking to Ban All Interfaith Marriages,  both published on the same day, linked to one another. 

As they had put the cart before the horses, it is no wonder that the carriage tumbled the moment it started moving. Incidentally, it seems those who run things at New York Times that a spate of articles, suddenly coming out from a Global Media house would raise eyebrows. More so, when we look at the media house which routinely calls the Indian government for its Hindu hues in a Hindu majority secular nation as Militant Hindu Nationalist Government, while at the same time celebrates the current US President taking oath on a Bible, 

[image error]

one knows that the idea driving these pieces is not a scholarly curiosity. There is a zealot's view of a foreign faith cleverly hidden in the pretence of a progressive idea. The premise on which the essay is based on the recent case of Sikh girl rescued by the Sikhs from conversion in Kashmir by Sikh leaders. This article is written by Two muslim journalists, Sameer Yasir and Iqbal Kirmani with Emily Schmall. The article Links back to another article by Sameer Yasir and Geneva Abdul about the first arrest in UP under the new law against forced religious conversion notoriously titled to mislead about the law [image error]

What speaks volumes about the editorial dishonesty of the fanatic Christian media house is that the law mentioned as New Interfaith Marriage law is actually called Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance, 2020. The law attempts to prevent religious conversions on three counts, marriage being one of them. The law requires the person responsible for conversion to prove that the religious conversion was not done under coercion. It is not unto Hindu nationalist government which NYT so dislikes to prove it one way or other. 

[image error]In the article by Geneva Abdul and Samir Yasir, it was claimed as a new article specifically designed to marginalise Muslims (as if Muslims were doomed into perpetual ghettoised existence unless they convert hindu women to Islam and get married to them). The article mischievously brings into play Citizenship Amendment act which was aimed at providing expedited citizenship to Hindus escaping persecution from Islamic nations creating out of India during Partition at the time of Independence as somehow being Anti-Muslim. The fact of the matter is that the new law of UP Government is religion-neutral and it equally will apply to the forced conversion of Muslims to Hindu faith under duress. I would presume that this article is based on an inherent acceptance that even in a Hindu majority nation, supposedly under the throes of some Hindu supremacist movement, the conversion of Muslim women to Hinduism is rare and religious conversion is usually one-way track. 

The article tries to stand on the crutches of the Sikh Girl's conversion case from Kashmir, staunchly opposed by the Sikh organization and even the Sikh advocates of Khalistan-Kashmir friendship, both separatist fanatic movements funded by Islamic State of Pakistan. However, the story which supposedly is the basis and cause of the column is abandoned as it moves to Hindu bashing. While it concedes that the ordinance is not only about Hindus leaving the faith, rather tries to protect all faiths from forced conversions, it cleverly pushes the propaganda stating -Critics contend that such laws fan anti-Muslim sentiment under a Government promoting a Hindu Nationalist Agenda. As is common with standard propaganda piece, it does not explain either- as to how the Government is promoting Hindu Nationalist Agenda and how it fans Anti-Muslim sentiment. The article neither explains nor explore the charges which it claims Critics make. 

The article goes to its standard Hinduphobic mode, abandoning the case from Kashmir which was the basic premise of the article, to attack the Government in UP, also bringing in discussion Bajrang Dal, condescendingly translating the Brigade of Lord Hanuman as Brigade of Hindu Monkey God. The anti-hindu tilt taken by the Muslim journalists of NYT is pretty obvious when they keep attacking Hindus for a case of conversion between Sikhs and Muslims. Also the article lacks any scholarly effort and the laziness of the writer is compensated by their hatred for Hinduism. 

The article some how presumes that the cries and concerns of Love Jihad is a Hindu thing and is a ploy of fanatic Hindus (an oxymoron) meant to oppose Interfaith marriage. This argument falls flat on the basic etymology itself. Interfaith marriage remains interfaith marriage only if the bride and the groom are from different faiths. The moment conversion happens, it is no longer interfaith marriage. So any opposition to conversion for the sake of marriage or post-marriage is actually against interfaith marriage. 

The article also totally ignores the fact that unlike Pakistan where overwhelmingly Muslim majority is charged with changing faith of women of other minority faith, in India, Muslims even when being minority are found being predatory in most case unlike the Hindu majority which ends up dead whether in case of Ankit Saxena or Rahul Rajput any time they happen to fall in love with a Muslim girl. In most such cases, there is no insistence of conversion so those are truly interfaith marriages gone bad. However as fanatic Muslims position as liberal journalists, these cases are not taken up by NYT. 

Another basic thing which shows the lethargy of NYT is the origin of the term. They project it as some Hindu group's fantasy. However, the term first came into public conversation then Kerala High Court admitted to this in the year 2009 spoke of it and asked the Government to frame laws to protect the innocent from what in the west has been officially called as grooming gangs, operating through fake identity, trapping the girls of other communities and then forcing them to convert. Pertinent to note here is that Kerala is not a state under the influence of the ideology, The NYT calls as Militant Hindutva ideology. The state has significant Christian and Muslim population and is under Communist sway. The Government in Center in 2009 was under UPA, with Congress being the lead member, under the leadership of Catholic Christian leader, Sonia Gandhi (her faith I have picked from a case filed in Mumbai HC by Senior Congress leader and lawyer Kapil Sibal where he claimed that Mrs Gandhi was being harassed for her catholic faith). While Sonia Gandhi might be very much a Parsi like her late husband, but in any case, 2009 was way before Narendra Modi was even a Prime Ministerial candidate, Kerala was a Left-ruled state. In Early 2020, Syro-Malabar Church, one of the largest Christian denomination claimed that Christian and Hindu women were systematically targeted to eventually employ them as ISIS brides, post conversion to Islam. 

The Hinduphobic piece of NewYork Times ignores the facts. It picks a rhetorical position, builds an opinion piece around it, while handling a sensitive issue which needs a nuanced approach, merely because their objective is to attack India being the only nation where a global minority religion resides in large numbers. I hope this blog reaches NYT and their readers and they all express their discomfort to the publication for being so much against a minority religion with no nation to call its own. While their article roams around in UP and Madhya Pradesh, it fails to even mention Kerala ever. I have on the other hand, tried to reference the claims I have made, instead of hiding behind clever tools like critics claim and many say. In the name of Interfaith Marriage, NYT would do well to look and investigate deeply into attempts to bring about demographic changes in the last lands of Hindu faith. 

This week, the Narendra Modi government was expanded. However, as it turned out, it was not merely an expansion, rather complete rehash of the cabinet, with many faces, widely believed as non-performers eased out of their positions. 

The expansion came with the dropping of some key names, much famed and widely seen on TV Channels, perceived to me closest to the leftist media houses. Prakash Javadekar was shunted, Ravishankar Prasad was dropped, so was Ramesh Pokhariyan Nishank. Apart from the worthies of Ministries of Information & Broadcasting, Law and IT and HRD, Dr. Harshvardhan was also dropped from health. 

Before we look at the addition, it is pertinent to look at the deletions from the earlier Cabinet. Prakash Javadekar, as I&B Minister was expected to take strong stand, make statements, blast the inane propaganda in key policy initiatives that the Modi Government was taking. From Land Acquisition Bill to Demonetization to GST to Triple Talaq to CAA to Farmer's Bill- the minister was rarely seen making any impact on the ground, or even establishing the channels of communication which would render the Leftist propaganda machinery redundant. In stead of that he was seen launching books by Modi-baiters like Saba Naqvi, while the Looney- Leftist gang went for the jugular in the earnest, even arm-twisting the  publishers into blocking the books by the nationalist voices on critical matters like the Delhi Riots. The fake stories on Indians losing Citizenship due to CAA and Farmers losing Lands due to Farm Bills went unchecked in Indian and Global Media. 

Ramesh Pokhriyal Nishank failed big time in doing absolutely anything in his ministry. His dithering caused much ill-will among the people particularly due to lack of clarity in Pandemic season. Even when Exams were cancelled, he would wait till the very end, and even while conveying people-friendly decision, earn enough ill-will of the people who waited for clarity with mounting frustrations as people were dying around them. The NEP came with big fan fare but on implementation, nothing much moved. The way the JNU VC was brought down to the level of rampaging rogue students also does not place him on good stand. If the Government has to make an appearance of strong and decisive government, the Minister did not help it on either count. 

Shri Ravi Shankar Prasad was never a grassroots leader. True, he could save his seat comfortably but opinion on-ground in Patna is not much that he could salvage even the very next constituency of his own. I would also presume, given the strong position with which BJP emerged in Bihar Elections, also gave an indication of lack of ground understanding of more visible Bihar politicians. A clever politician like Narendra Modi would have understood that BJP could have done much better without the dead weight of JDU pulling it down. Without JDU, with an ideology at cross-purpose to the BJP, the daughter of a JDU MLA allegedly involved in shooting at Hindus, BJP would have done much better by giving its voters a clear choice, instead of forcing them into -Love me, Love my dog- kind of situation. The shadows of Anurag Poddar still hangs over BJP as the same MP is one of the new inductee in the Modi government under the JDU Quota. This alliance with political parties of counter-ideology has not been very helpful in Punjab and Bihar is no different. 

Also, as a Law Minister, his stint would be marred with the Judiciary routinely wading into the Executive domain. In fact, UP Government has done quite a decent job in managing to mark the line between the Judiciary and Executive and strongly objecting to any attempts by the latter to act as the Guardian of the former. As IT Minister, he helplessly went around talking to everyone from News Anchors to Post Boxes on the nonchalance with which Twitter treated Indian Government, and managed to get his own handle suspended. In IT, he was well-intentioned but ineffective. BSNL worked as a rogue, mad elephant jumping into quicksand under his leadership. His missives to the Babus of BSNL, making merry out of the mess their was in, were totally ignored. His serious instructions for timely execution of projects were given no attention as the Minister evidently had no clue about what was going on. Even Bharat Net, a failed UPA-era project which was rescued by Modi government, and which became the bulwark on which Demonetisation stood and which paved way for inclusive banking, owed its eventual success to Shri Manoj Sinha, who doggedly pursued its targets. From less than Fifty Percent Indians who had Bank accounts in 2014, not it is nearly universal. Further, as Jio turned China-free, BSNL became China-Heavy, Wired and Wireless, distributed between Huawei and ZTE. 

Dr. Harshvardhan did little to bring solace to citizens during the Pandemic. His communication was often incoherent, inconsequential and in some cases, insensitive when amid rising deaths he would tweet congratulatory tweets, adulating Modi. Ideologically, he was a man in the middle of nowhere. People want to believe. A leader is supposed to give the people a peg, an anchor to tie his or her boat on in a stormy sea. A leader like Modi is sum-total of all those who follow him. Ideologically, they need to add to the ideological heft of Modi. Unfortunately, Dr Harshvardhan fell terribly short on this count. When Hindu temple in Hauz Qazi was attacked and desecrated, there were reports that local Muslim AAP MLA was leading the crowd. From the other side, the local MP, Dr. Harshvardhan was missing-in-action and appeared on the scene, two days later, after pooh-poohing the whole thing. In the pandemic, if PMO is sending the ventilators to Rajasthan and they get siphoned to private hospitals, or Oxygen Plants get budgeted for Delhi and do not see light of the day, it was the job of the Health Minister to do that, not to lobby with IMA in Ayurveda Versus Allopathic fight. His failure to implement the Modi's mandate might have helped BJP in scoring points against opposition but when people are losing their near and dear one, with ineffective I&B Minister, bumbling and unsure Health Minister did not make things easier. People may blame Modi's centralized way of governance but nothing stops a man to act on the ground in conformity to Modi's policies. 

His public posturing in the Diwali Ban of Firecrackers started messing up things way early that when he fell, not one eye was willing to shed a tear. The petition to ban Firecrackers on Diwali was initiated ostensibly by some toddlers of the family of Congress leader, Dr Abhishek Manu Singhi and Dr. Harshvardhan possibly to become a darling of the west, played along, knowing full well that there was no scientific study which held Festival Firecrackers for the pollution. The West which celebrated 4th of July recently with huge fireworks, went after this Hindu festival, much as they did after Holi in the name of Save water. It might seem as a small thing but civilizationaly, Dr Harshvardhan mainstreamed the fringe insanity which comes to play itself at the time of Hindu festivals, funded by foreign NGOs. To understand the significance of this, the importance of every fading festival, I quote the happiness with which a Christian Priest from 400 AD, John Chrysostom celebrated the end of Pagan Festivals. Please understand with fun removed out of festivals, the interest of the youth and children is removed, memories of festivals fade away and eventually a civilisation is wiped off, much like Roman Pagan civilisation. These propaganda have far reaching effects, generationally, once the state falls in line and banning festivals is legalised; we notice when our kids are looking forward to next year's Halloween, not the next year's Holi. John Chrysostom had then exuberantly said

'The traditions of the forefathers have been destroyed, the deep-rooted custom has been torn out, the tyranny of joy and accursed festivals have been obliterated just like smoke.' 

I do not know if the change in the Health Ministry will make things better, still now that the SC has asked for scientific justification to continue the ban (particularly when Stubble-burning has been legalised by the Government succumbing to the pressure brought in by the rioting Leftist leaders of Farmers from Punjab), at least legitimisation and mainstreaming of Hindu festivals might stop. 

This brings us to the additions. Apart from the fact that performing Ministers have been elevated, it is important to note the fabric of the new Cabinet of Narendra Modi. The NDTV favourite I&B Minister has been replaced by Anurag Thakur, a BJP leader that the Looney-Left loves to hate. It is hard to imagine an Anurag Thakur unveiling a book by Saba Naqvi or Sanjukta Basu, for that matter. HRD Ministry goes to Dharmendra Pradhan, who is an old RSS hand. The way Ujwala scheme of free gas for the poor was managed, even the Government Petroleum firms were pulled in to support PM Swacch Bharat programme, one can believe that HRD ministry will move from snail-paced changes to Mission-mode galloping speed. 

Mansukh Mandaviya has been given health. He earlier handled Chemicals and Fertilisers. His English tweets have been dug up by supporters of party run by Italian Lady who did a Certificate in English speaking from some nondescript school in Cambridge to make herself employable, herself coming from village area in Italy, to quote a Hindi Movie dialogue. Before laughing off Mansukh Mandaviya for poor English, let us remember, knowing English makes it possible for UPA Chief Sonia Gandhi communicate with only 3% Indians, knowing Hindi, puts Mr. Mandaviya at immediate talking terms with 57% Hindi-speaking population and 5% Gujarati speaking people. The man is graduate in Veterinary Sciences and Masters in Political Sciences. Just to bring things into context, Mrs Sonia Gandhi did her schooling till the age of Thirteen, one would think till Middle-School, studied English at a Language school in the City of Cambridge, met Rajiv at the age of Eighteen and married three year hence. He is also credited with quickly bringing the shortage of medicine under control. Even the administrator of Mumbai, run by Congress-Coalition on record praised him for his support, amid suddenly rising requirement in a highly infectious pandemic. A grassroots level worker, he is famous for campaigning for Girl-Child Education across 45 Villages first and later across 150 Villages. He won his first election at the age of 28 from Palitana. His daughter, Disha is a medical intern and was in news for serving Covid patients. Again to bring things into context, Mr. Mandaviya is couple of years younger than the Youth leader of Congress, Shri Rahul Gandhi, who has, of late, transformed himself into some kind of Greta Thunberg of the middle-aged. 

Thus to my mind, the new Modi Cabinet represents a stiffening of stance, giving more ideological definition to his government. The other thing we see within the days of the formation of this new cabinet is that it has little room for slackness. Modi has brought in an impatient lot. We would also hope to see a lot more communication, if the immediate address of the media by Anurag Thakur and Agriculture Minister is a sign. There is a lot of picking up that the pandemic has left us with. It is expected that this cabinet will do that. The new Rail Minister has already put his staff in shifts. The alignment of Railways with Road Transport might look more logical, but politically, Gadkari seems to have earned a habit of out-of-turn talking, for instance on the medicine supplies, maybe due to a lot of media attention. The new Railways and IT Minister is IIT Graduate and has studied at Harvard with impeccable academic records. In any case, the academic credentials of this government will be much difficult to match for the left with their fill of MPhils and intellectuals like Masters in Critical Media and Cultural Studies posing as Health experts. The new cabinet of Modi is so technically and academically heavy, that it will not be easy for the Buddhist Studies gang to attack it on credentials. The new cabinet has in it 13 Lawyers, 6 Doctors, 5 Engineers, 7 Civil Servants, 7 PhD and 3 with Business Degrees. 

They cannot charge the new Narendra Modi cabinet on Diversity. The new Cabinet has Eleven Women Ministers, highest ever representation in a cabinet of 71 members. Manmohan Singh's 79 Member cabinet had 10 women Ministers. Instead of being representative placards of populism, the women cabinet ministers are strong grassroots leaders with proven electoral track and have splendid professional histories.  

As usual the left laments, this time on different things since the usual nonsense of 'the Right lacks talent' does not hold (Factually it never did. Left always needed a woolly minded idea of the world and was not suited for those with intellectually sharper minds). So now the reasons for lament are new. For instance, Indian Express report speaks of most diverse cabinet ever but slyly adds ' The new women ministers accommodated factors such as caste, tribe and the urban-rural divide. - which is rather funny. If that is a considered decision, it should be celebrated, if it is incidental, given that Indian society is one of the most eclectic society and therefore this cabinet represents it; it should be celebrated even more. 

Second charge being made is that this Cabinet is being made with the upcoming UP elections in mind. Assuming it were true, it makes all political sense. After all, BJP is not an NGO. They need to win elections. The only other option for a political party which does not want to win Elections is to run a dubious outfit like one of Yogendra Yadav and try to break India and make money from alleged international sources. However, Looking at the facts, the new cabinet has while UP has 8 Ministers, North East too has broke into the Cabinet with expanded representations including Pratima Bhoumik, a first from Tripura and Dr. DK Ranjan Singh, an environmentalist from Manipur. The critique of higher number of Ministers from UP is also reasonable given that UP has sent 62 number of BJP MPs to the parliament. It is obvious that the ministerial berths will be more for a UP. State like Tamil Nadu, which has not sent any BJP MP, cannot seek to have as many Ministers from the State in the Cabinet. The charge that this change has been done to help Yogi Adityanath win the 2022 UP election is made, ironically by those who for a fortnight ran a series of debates on how things were bad between Yogi and Modi and Modi might not want Yogi to win UP elections. 

The last argument which is made is that this is done to A. improve the standing of Narendra Modi and B. It has Narendra Modi mark written all over it. Now here is the gallup report on Leadership approval to understand, if in spite of uncontrollable pandemic which has wrecked havoc even in most developed nations, Narendra Modi needed this booster dose from strictly political perspective. 

 Above is the UPA approval rating. There was no pandemic and no economic pressure. People who approved the Government were less in number than those who did not. (The 2014 change is with Narendra Modi Government). 

Here is Narendra Modi's approval rating on this date (6th of July, 2021) at 68%. It would seem that if anything his approval rating has gone up from what it was in October, 2019. So that this whole exercise was totally some sort of narcissistic exercise nothing to do with national development and growth, may not hold as the data tells us. If it is to better the overall political prospects of BJP in 2024 elections, with still two years to go, it shows a great deal of proactiveness of a party in majority which has recently made spectacular progress in West Bengal, going from 3 to 73 seats. Compare this with the inner fighting and lack of will or willingness to even appoint a full-time Party President by the competing opposition party. 

[image error]

I end this article with the funniest of the charge made to somehow downplay this important change in Governance of one of the most important countries in the world, housing world's third-largest majority religion. It is now being said that this change has Modi stamp all over. What else it should have, I ask them. The cabinet of a PM should have the stamp of the Prime Minister only because, if the decisions are wrong, in a democracy, you can change it. What is the point of having a 79 members Cabinet which has the influence of unelected and unelectable journalist from NDTV, the power of a shady lobbyist or the nuisance of an unaccountable NAC written all over it. That the hallmark of an elected PM shines over the newly formed cabinet, makes me confident and assured about the future of my country.