-
English India In The Making
October 5th is International Teachers Day. It is also Indian English Day. English language education has a history of 205 years in India.
Incidentally October 5th is also my 70th birthday. My thirty years campaign for English medium education for poor children in the Government schools has come to a meaningful stage.
William Carey and Raja Ramohan Roy started the first English medium school in Kolkata (then Calcutta) in 1817. By 2022 where the world stands relieved with medical science, mainly developed using the English language as global communicator, has saved the world from devastation. If science and English were not to co-exist the world would have been a burial ground because of Corona.
So far in India two State Governments, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana have made English medium teaching compulsory in all the state Government schools. This is the beginning of an educational revolution in India. Already Nagaland has been teaching only in English medium in all the state Government schools for quite a long time. Most state Governments have started teaching English as a compulsory subject from class one in the recent past. Kashmir has started such compulsory English teaching from class one as a subject for a long time. The Aam Aadmi Party in Delhi upscaled English teaching in all state run schools.
This apart, there are thousands of private English medium schools all over India.
It is a known fact that the Rastriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) are opposed to English medium education in Government schools. At the same time they are not opposed to private schools that teach in English medium with a design to keep the poor out of English education.
They know that English language education takes people out of poverty, conservatism and superstition.
After the BJP/RSS came to power in 2014 the private sector has opened more costly English medium schools, colleges and universities for the rich. But the central Government has been insisting that the poor–as they mostly are from Shudra/SC/STs–to study in regional languages. That is a varna dharma language policy.
MY ENCOUNTER WITH SOIL AND ENGLISH
In my 70 years of life I consciously interacted with this soil, animals, crops ever since I was five. In other words for 65 years I lived a conscious life on this soil, leaving five years of pure childhood. As a child I played in this land’s dust, mud, among lambs, calves of buffalos and cows. I also ate mud or dust as many children in Indian villages do.
In my childhood my caste people were speaking to humans and animals in a language called Kuruma Bhasha, which had its origins in Kannada Kuruba Bhasha. Very few people understood that language. It had no script. My total community was illiterate and was speaking a scriptless language within themselves. Other villagers did not understand that language.
All around my small village there were Lambada tribal hamlets. They were speaking Gor Boli (Lambadi Bhasha). Within the village there were few Muslim houses. Their children were speaking Urdu. Many castes which were around agrarian tasks were speaking Telugu in Telangana dialect with a lot of Urdu words in it. There was hardly any communication between groups. People’s communication from language to language was broken one and symbolic.
As I grew up we shifted to Telugu from our caste language. But still we were broken people in terms of our different languages, leave alone caste. Shifting from one language to another was a difficult journey.
In the last 65 years of my conscious and communicative life a slow and silent revolution took place. English has come into all houses, literate, illiterate, rural or urban, slowly. That began to bring a change.
The name Rice replaced what we called biyyam, Motton replaced, mansamu, Fish replaced chepalu, Chicken replaced kodi kura, Vegetable replaced koora kayalu in all communities in the deeper Andhra Pradesh and Telangana villages and hamlets.
Not only that Water replaced neellu, Milk replaced paalu, Salt replaced uppu. Oil replaced noone. Shirt replaced angi. Pant replaced laagu. Labour replaced cooli.Many such English words and names of commodities have become common. Main functions like pendli in Telugu is Marriage now.
The anti-English pundits are crying about Mammi replacing Amma. Dady replacing Nanna. They are blissfully ignorant about all markets even in villages being full of English words and names. Not just in Telugu region but all over India. The English words have replaced similar names and words of day to day use for commodities. Slowly but surely Indian life is getting anglicized.
My childhood memory of linguistic culture that could not communicate with one another changed now quite drastically. My childhood language Kuruma Bhasha died irretrievably. In the villages, towns and cities the English words replaced all their so called mother tongue words among all sections of people.
For Telugu, Urdu or Lambadi language speaking people English words connected with their daily used food items names and new technologies. The newly coming English words into their (not language) life repositioned their future.
As of now few hundred English words are known to every villager, male or female.
Today the same people are using machines that speak English with English names called Cell Phone. There are no words for Cell and Phone in their so-called mother tongue. Regional TV channels use 30 to 40 percent English words and sentences. Morning news, Evening news, Burning topic, Gun shot, Big fight, Big Debate, News Express and so on are very common on so called Telugu TV screens. It could be true of other language TV channels. Those channels that use only regional languages have no viewers.
THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE CHANGE
The process of English names and words entering into our families, villages and cities did not start recently. It started a long time back.
in my childhood in the 1950s they found new English words like Bus and Train in the villages, as they just occasionally started travelling in them. Along with those names machines they also learnt the words like Ticket and Conductor. Several English words, names of instruments, machines have come into their life year after year. This happened in every state, in every region–tribal or non-tribal.
I am not at all sad that my early childhood kuruma bhasha died. I was happy when I started speaking Telugu, with many Urdu words, as my village was located in the former Nizam state, which could be understood by more people in the village or in the nearby town.
Now slowly but surely Telugu is being replaced by English words in most communications. As that was happening I was becoming happier. Because with a word or name usage without speaking in a grammared language more people were communicating with each other. The village production language was never grammar centred. It was/is communication centred. The English words expanded their communication range and circle.
In my very lifetime my villagers started engaging with machines that have only English names; their parts were also named in English. For example in the early 1960s a cycle with the name Cycle came into their life; chain was only Chain; handles were only Handles. Current came to their village with the name Current only. Oil engine came only with the name Oil Engine. All, mostly illiterate, people understood their role and functions with those names only.
Along with oil engines came pipes, tubes and so on. By the late 1960s Current Motors came along with several interconnected instruments only with English names into villages. All these English words and names of machines, instruments were used by farmers totally disconnected with one another working under the sky all day. Neither Sanskrit nor their local language connected them with day to day life changing new vocabulary. Neither RSS nor other mother tongue pandits could stop spreading English in their fields, homes. For example, along with the current bulb, wire, swich kind of names and words in English entered their own homes to light their dark houses, they too loved that language to live a better life.
This revolutionary replacement of English words of all language speakers happened among all ideological families. Whether the RSS/BJP or Congress or Communist or regional parties supported or not the language revolution did not stop. This replacement happened among Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Parsese and so on. This revolution could not be avoided by religious practices or conservatism or communalism. Market with English words became a master of change.
I could see that. Neighbours who could not understand each other’s language in villages began to understand better after the English words connected them to the market.
The village people with English words became Indians. English made them nationalist. Earlier they were disconnected locals. Across India people understood those words and names. Suddenly communities living in small language clusters without any communication with each other, became Indian in understanding the names and functions of the technologies in English, grammar or no grammar. No other language of regions–including Hindi–would have done that.
Unless a language has a close link to the technologies at the time of their discovery the relationship between that technology and the language that tells about that technology would not get communicated to the user. English and modern science are twins. Hence India cannot become a scientifically advanced nation without all the productive masses knowing English better than what they do now.
However, English has come to them over the last sixty five years as part of their market relations, not with systematic education. All this happened in the post-colonial period. But the Dwija elite acquired English during the colonial period because of private English medium education.
My realization that English would liberate the caste-class oppressed masses did not come from my exposure to Oxford, Cambridge or Harvard education or intellectuals who got imported from there. As I have shown above, my realization came from changes that the English words and names of the new technologies brought in the Indian village life right from my childhood.
Now the whole world is shifting to English language communication. Former colonies of French and Portuguese are now shifting their education system to English. China that was opposed to English is investing hugely on English education of their children and youth.
The the private English educated rich in India want to deceive the masses even in this age wherein very advanced technology and communication are deeply linked with English. English education gives hope to poor mothers when their daughters and sons get that. In this present situation of darkness all around, English education in Government school that comes free of cost, is certainly a ray of hope.
https://countercurrents.org/2022/09/english-india-in-the-making/
-
205th Anniversary Celebration of Indian English Day
-
Why naming the new Parliament building after BR Ambedkar would be a true step towards decolonisation
Indian democracy and Ambedkar have almost became synonymous.
Yesterday · 09:00 am
Prakash Singh/AFP 
In recent weeks, there has been a demand for the new Parliament building being constructed on the revamped Central Vista in New Delhi to be named after the architect of the Constitution and anti-caste leader BR Ambedkar.
On September 14, the Telangana Assembly passed a resolution urging the Centre to name the new Parliament building after Ambedkar. The Bharatiya Janata Party was absent during the debate about the resolution.
The next day, the Telangana Rashtra Samithi-led government declared that the new secretariat in the centre of Hyderabad would be named after Ambedkar. Chief Minister K Chandrasekhar Rao added that he would write to Prime Minister Narendra Modi requesting him to name the new Parliament building in Delhi “Ambedkar Parliament”.
The demand is finding resonance among civil society groups too and has led to social media discussions as well as public mobilisation. But two questions arise:
Should a Parliament that makes laws for a nation over a long period of time be named after one leader, whatever be their stature and acceptability? Does Ambedkar deserve such a pedestal over all other founders and leaders of India’s parliamentary democracy?
Usually, a parliament building should not be confined to the name of one individual, however great that individual was. Since Parliament represents the whole nation, it should be the “Indian Parliament”.
However, it is a cultural practice in India to name all manner of things after noteworthy individuals. Logically, why not name the new parliament building after any great individual who contributed significantly enough to build parliamentary democracy in India?
The second question requires a comparative evaluation of three personalities who played a key role in institutionalising constitutional parliamentary democracy in India: Ambedkar, Jawaharlal Nehru and Vallabhbhai Patel. MK Gandhi had little to do with the making of the Constitution. Gandhi’s role ended with India achieving freedom as he chose to remain outside the constituent assembly, which drafted the country’s Constitution.
Of the three founders mentioned, the current ruling dispensation holds a hostile view of Nehru, his ideological, theoretical and administrative roles as freedom fighter and as the first prime minister of India. With Nehru as the father figure of the Gandhi-Nehru family that ruled for several years, Modi has positioned himself in direct confrontation with him.
The others that the Modi government may be positively inclined to view then are Ambedkar and Patel. This is evident from the past eight years of the Bharatiya Janata Party’s rule.Jawaharlal Nehru, MK Gandhi and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel in 1946. Credit: Kulwant Roy, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.
Ambedkar and Patel have competing status, no doubt. Evaluating their struggle, theory, practice and the impact of their role on democratic principles and ideals makes them both serious contenders to name the new parliament building after. However, for philosophical and ideological reasons, rather than Patel, it is Ambedkar’s name that should take precedence.
Patel, who hailed from a Shudra agrarian landed family, rose to become a towering freedom fighter, activist, leader and administrator. He went on to unify the country with determination and strong will, persuading the rulers of the many princely states to merg with the Indian Union. Patel was a lawyer and had a successful practice in courts – but he was not a legal philosopher, historian or economist.
Ambedkar, on the other hand, was from the most oppressed category of “untouchables”. He was also a fighter, activist, leader and administrator in his own way. Additionally, Ambedkar was a profound legal and moral philosopher. He trained himself in several disciplines such as history, sociology and politics and economics.
He was a powerful speaker with a command over English, Hindi Marathi and also Sanskrit. He was also well-versed in multiple schools of thought – Buddhist, Vaidic, Jain, Islamic, Christian and more. At the same time he had a command over Euro-American history, philosophy and legal systems.
While steering the drafting of the Constitution and getting articles passed in the Constituent Assembly, his initiations and interventions surpassed those of the rest. Ambedkar’s intellectual power convinced friend and foe in the Constituent Assembly that his conviction to establish a democratic system in India was unmatched.
Yet, as long as the Congress was in full control of the power structures in Delhi, Ambedkar was ignored. India began rdiscovering Ambedkar in the post-Mandal era – after the Mandal Commission report recommending affirmative reservation for backward classes in education and jobs was published in 1980.
From courts to universities and mass movements, Ambedkar’s writings and speeches in the Constituent Assembly and outside became weapons to defend Indian democracy as it entered crisis after crisis. Indian democracy and Ambedkar almost became synonymous.A design of the new Parliament building. Credit: Central Vista website.
The Mandal era resurrected Ambedkar’s commitment to India as a nation. Though Ambedkar knew that Western constitutional ideals evolved in many countries particularly, England and the United States, he drew more relevant principles from Indian history. Thus, Ambedkar made Indian nationalism more grounded than anybody else’s. Buddha’s parables, Mauryan emperor Ashoka’s administrative principles and symbols were made relevant in modern times because of Ambedkar.
He often repeated the three cardinal principles of democracy – liberty, equality and fraternity – from ancient Indian history, not French thought. Ambedkar’s nationalism was not rooted in mythology but in the productive life of the Indian masses. He helped bring from the margins the concerns of the historically oppressed into the constitutional framework.
The Dalits, Adivasis and shudras today owe to him their slowly but surely transforming lives. If the new parliament building is named after Ambedkar, it would be clear that a serious civilisational transformation is underway in India. The complete and true de-colonisation of India will set a new benchmark.
Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd is a political theorist, social activist, author. His books include God As Political Philosopher-Buddha’s Challenge to Brahminism, Buffalo Nationalism and The Shudras-Vision for a New Path, The Weapon of the Other and others.
-
Modi govt’s Hyderabad ‘Liberation’ Day reopens old wounds. KCR’s ‘Integration’ wiser approach
The critical difference between the ‘integration’ and ‘liberation approach’ is that the latter is designed to provoke the 15 per cent Muslim population of Telangana.
12 September, 2022 08:41 am IST
File photo of Telangana Chief Minister K. Chandrasekhar Rao. | Photo: ANI
Politics over the celebration of Hyderabad’s inclusion into the Union of India has picked pace this year. While the Narendra Modi government at the Centre has decided to officially celebrate 17 September as ‘Hyderabad Liberation Day’, the Telangana government led by Chief Minister K. Chandrasekhar Rao will remember it as ‘National Integration Day’.
The BJP’s reference perhaps alludes to Hyderabad’s “liberation” from its last Nizam, Osman Ali Khan’s monarchic rule. The RSS-BJP do not see the Nizam rule as just monarchic but also ‘Muslim rule over Hindus’. CM Rao’s decision seeks to counter this aggressive ‘anti-Muslim posture of the central government’. This move assumes greater importance in light of Rao pitching himself as a national leader.
In all of this, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and the Communist Party of India, which called 17 September a ‘Vidrohi (Deception) Day’ got completely marginalised. However, they keep holding the view that the merger of the Telangana state in the Union was done to crush their armed struggle.
Why integration must be discussed
Junagadh was the last integrated state that saw much more anxiety because its Muslim ruler, Muhammad Mahabat Khanji III, had already acceded to Pakistan and settled there. But the RSS-BJP combine does not talk about Junagadh at all.
This contentious competitive celebration of Hyderabad’s merger with the Indian Union under the decisive leadership of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, then-deputy PM and home minister, needs a thorough discussion. With Hyderabad’s merger on 17 September 1948 and Kashmir’s before that, there was no disruptive princely state left to be integrated.
Kashmir and Hyderabad wanted to be independent nations while the Junagadh king wanted to go with Pakistan. The remaining princely states were merged through diplomatic negotiation by Patel and V.P. Menon, who was the secretary in the home ministry and known for his negotiating abilities.
Kashmir was a Muslim-majority state ruled by a Hindu king whereas Hyderabad was a Hindu-majority state under a Muslim king. The Congress was serious about bringing them into the Union after West Pakistan was partitioned. It did not want any idea of independent state within India. Hence, the Nehru-Patel government was prepared to use force and integrate them. Only then would India’s status as a sovereign and independent nation come into existence. While Kashmir was seen as a problem region on the border, Hyderabad was a much bigger problem in the centre. Patel and Jawaharlal Nehru were very serious about it. If the Hyderabad state had not merged, the meaning of ‘India’ would have been different.
The RSS was also advocating for a merger while the Communist Party of India made it an experimental armed struggle base. The RSS saw it as a Muslim state and hence was against its status as an independent nation. But in those days, the RSS was not a force to reckon with. Its nationalism was largely centred on ‘anti-Muslim’ views and the organisation itself was more a campaign network.
The Congress wanted India to be a well-governable, geographically united state. And that happened with the merger of Hyderabad — after what is known as the ‘Police Action’. The Central government needed to use force in Kashmir, Junagadh, and Hyderabad, and that led to many deaths and atrocities.
Deepening the divide
After hesitating for a long time, the Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) has taken a properly formulated stand because the RSS-BJP combine has been seemingly trying to turn it into a communal issue for the past few years. Now, the Centre has jumped into the fray keeping in mind the 2023 assembly election.
The critical difference between the ‘integration’ and ‘liberation’ approach is that the latter is designed to provoke and target the 15 per cent Muslim population of Telangana and isolate and harass them. A ruling party at the national level with a comfortable majority works around these issues so the nation cannot proceed on the path of development.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi installed a massive statue of Sardar Patel in Gujarat and called it ‘The Statue of Unity’ as Patel was a key figure in the integration of Junagadh, Hyderabad, and Kashmir into the Union. Why did they not name it as ‘The Statue of Liberation’? The greatness of Patel lies in merging these three ‘troublesome states’ into the Union. The RSS-BJP appropriated Patel, a Congress leader, for this very reason and made him their icon. Patel being the tallest leader with a Shudra-agrarian background without any dynasty politics to burden his legacy, unlike Nehru, is the reason the RSS-BJP combine is spending so much political and financial capital on him.
Why use a special language for Telangana and constantly keep the state in religious conflict? The people of Telangana and political parties must celebrate 17 September as ‘National Integration Day’ so that the communal bogey around the issue could be buried.
There is a popular photograph of Sardar Patel and Osman Ali Khan walking side by side after they signed the accession agreement in Hyderabad. It can be seen at many places in the city and also on social media. Unlike the ruler of Junagadh, who went to Pakistan, Osman Ali Khan remained in India. Most of his family wealth was also given to the Union, including the famous Hyderabad House in Delhi. Why then should one vilify him and the Muslims after 75 years in this so-called Amrit Kaal?
The people of India certainly proved that they are gracious enough to forget past wounds and reconcile to live in peace. What the BJP government is doing is unbecoming of a nationalist party.
Nationalism isn’t about reopening pre-Independence wounds and putting salt over them. Nationalism is also not about turning people against each other. Let us celebrate 17 September as ‘National Integration Day’ and pay homage to Sardar Patel and those who died on both sides.
Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd is a political theorist, social activist and author. His most known books are Why I Am Not a Hindu: A Shudra Critique of Hindutva Philosophy, Culture and Political Economy, and Post-Hindu India: A Discourse in Dalit-Bahujan Socio-Spiritual and Scientific Revolution. Views are personal.
(Edited by Humra Laeeq)
-
Who are the True Founding Fathers and Mothers of Indian Democracy? | The India Forum
“The true founders of Indian democracy”
FORUM
Who are the True Founding Fathers and Mothers of Indian Democracy?
India’s founding fathers and mothers contributed in multiple ways to the establishment of democracy in the country. Some of those mentioned by the prime minister on 15 August did not make such contributions. Here is a more representative list.
KANCHA ILAIAH SHEPHERD
PALLIKONDA MANIKANTA
SEPTEMBER 05, 2022
After the celebration of 75 years of Indian independence, there has been a lot of discussion about who the founding fathers of our democratic system are. The ruling Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)/Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) combination, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who addressed the nation from the Red Fort on 15 August 2022, have initiated a new discussion on this crucial question.
Modi was earlier heard saying on various occasions, (both in India and abroad) that India was “the mother of democracy”. His speech this year from the Red Fort was quite well crafted and meant to glorify the outlook of the “Modi Shining” era, which he indirectly referred to as “Amrit Kaal”. He went a step further and laid emphasis on today’s aspirational society, which is key to understanding the body politic of Hindutva’s vision.
Apart from M.K. Gandhi, B. R. Ambedkar, and Vallabhbhai Patel, the RSS-BJP combine has been lately invoking the names of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and Subhas Chandra Bose. Jawaharlal Nehru was, and still is, their nemesis and he therefore merits only cursory mention. It is worth quoting what Modi said on 15 August 2022,
All the countrymen are deeply indebted to pujya (revered) Bapu, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, Babasaheb Ambedkar, Veer Savarkar, who devoted all their life on the path of duty towards the nation. The path of obligation has been their sole life path… Today is an opportunity to pay homage to countless such great men like Dr. Rajendra Prasadji, Nehruji, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Shyama Prasad Mookherjee, Lal Bahadur Shastri, Deendayal Upadhyay, Jai Prakash Narayan, Ram Manohar Lohia, Acharya Vinoba Bhave, Nanaji Deshmukh, Subramania Bharati who fought the war of independence and built the country after independence (emphasis added)
We leave it to readers to decode what has been emphasised in the above quote. Modi is one who always likes to have an audience that suits him. He enjoys reading the crowd to gain legitimacy and that is how the script evolves. In other words, what you see is what the RSS/BJP combine wants you to see. This defines a new kaal (time) called “Amrit Kaal” (in Vedic astrology, the perfect time to start a new venture). Since they are in power now, Kali Yuga (a demonic age) has become Amrit Yuga (an age of immortality).
For a long period, the Congress regime prominently mentioned only Gandhi and Nehru. Now, the RSS-BJP combine is reinventing the language and grammar of political democracy.
In understanding the founding fathers of Indian democracy, each political party has its agenda and outlook. For a long period, the Congress regime prominently mentioned only Gandhi and Nehru. Now, the RSS-BJP combine is reinventing the language and grammar of political democracy. Yet, ironically, the founding mothers of Indian democracy are overlooked by everyone.
Even after 75 years of freedom, we are still grappling with fundamental questions to do with the founding of our democracy and who can be deservedly listed as our founding fathers and mothers. In our view, they are those who contributed in multiple ways to setting up the democratic system we have now. They played a critical role in the freedom struggle and evolved their philosophy in the Constituent Assembly. They were involved in drafting our Constitution and represented various sections of Indian society.
We list eight names—six men and two women—who could be called the main pillars of the present democratic set-up. They are Gandhi (1869-1948), B.R. Ambedkar (1891-1956), Jawaharlal Nehru (1889-1964), Vallabhbhai Patel (1875-1950), Rajkumari Amrit Kaur (1887-1964), Maulana Abul Kalam Azad (1888-1958), Jaipal Singh Munda (1903-1970), and Dakshayani Velayudhan (1912-1978).
Quite accidently, they came from diverse castes and religions. In terms of caste, Gandhi was a Bania, Ambedkar a Dalit, Nehru a Brahmin, Vallabhbhai Patel a Shudra, Kaur a Christian and Sikh, Azad a Muslim, Jaipal Singh a tribal, and Velayudhan a Dalit from South India. Except Gandhi, all of them were members of the Constituent Assembly; five of them served in the first cabinet and set up the structures that were needed for democratic institutions to grow. Also, barring Ambedkar, all of them were Congress leaders in the fight for freedom.
Ambedkar played the double role of trying to free India from casteism and colonialism from the 1930s onwards, working from his own platforms. Amrit Kaur and Velayudhan played a critical role in the Constituent Assembly, representing the interests of women and children of all castes, religions, and communities.
We believe that the founding fathers and mothers are different in some ways from all the participants in the freedom struggle. The freedom fighters were numerous and came from different political backgrounds. Many fought for freedom and died for it. Many gave away their property and lived an unmarried life with the single goal of freeing India from the British. Rajkumari Kaur was one such remarkable female freedom fighter, and there were many such women and men in the years leading up to 1947.
It is important to think and rethink the roles these eight freedom fighters and thinkers played in shaping Indian democracy. They all deserve laurels whether one agrees with their ideology or not. Petty politics should not undermine our regard for those who gave us a democratic system that has survived many odds and challenges.
In India, only Nehru became the Prime Minister from among the founding figures and continued in the post for 17 years. In our view, he should have done exactly what George Washington did—resign after two terms…
American democracy acknowledges seven figures as founding fathers—George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison. There was no leading woman politician at that time. Of the seven, four became presidents and stabilised the democratic system in the early years of America’s existence as a unified country.
In India, only Nehru became the Prime Minister from among the founding figures and continued in the post for 17 years. In our view, he should have done exactly what George Washington did—resign after two terms to ensure that no dynasty got hold of the power structure of the nation. Nelson Mandela resigned after his first five-year term.
Nehru’s long innings in power created a coterie of writers and thinkers who paid little heed to the roles of Ambedkar, Vallabhbhai Patel, Amrit Kaur, Jaipal Singh, Velayudhan, and Maulana Azad in the freedom struggle. All Nehruvian scholars not only ignored Ambedkar, but also considered him unworthy of being on a list of freedom fighters. This led to a backlash from Dalit, Adivasi, and Other Backward Class (OBC) intellectuals and many others. The intellectuals also diminished the role of Vallabhbhai Patel. Ironically, the BJP is now using these two figures to undermine Nehru.
Gandhi remains a constant symbol for all parties. For a long time, his murder by Nathuram Godse created a sense of unease whenever the RSS/BJP approved of him. From Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s days as prime minister, the ruling party has been ritually paying tributes to him at Rajghat. For a long time, the communists respected Gandhi, while completely ignoring the other founders, particularly Ambedkar, who could have come to their rescue in a crisis like the present one.
All the political parties conveniently ignore Amrit Kaur, Jaipal Singh, and Velayudhan, who had perhaps been among the most active members of the freedom movement and the Constituent Assembly. Amrit Kaur was the only female Cabinet minister in the Nehru government for 10 years with the important health portfolio. Maulana Azad, of course, got minority treatment throughout.
Each one of them had their own … personalities, but they were also accommodative of opposing views … For example, Gandhi and Ambedkar had opposing views about various aspects of Indian life, institutions, practices, and culture, but they worked together for the common cause of democracy.
We feel that each one of these eight figures were equally important in instituting our present democratic structures and sustaining them with a constitutional democracy, which was supported by a well-written constitution and a dignified national flag. Though each one of them had their own grounding, all of them were experts in modern constitutionalism, the principles of democracy, and the moral and ethical bases of the institutions that had to be built by Indians. They were all well educated, both in India and England (except Azad, who was self-educated in English, and Velayudhan, who was educated in Kerala), and deeply committed to national freedom and advancement.
Each one of them had their own philosophical and ethical personalities, but they were also accommodative of opposing views and principles. For example, Gandhi and Ambedkar had opposing views about various aspects of Indian life, institutions, practices, and culture, but they worked together for the common cause of democracy. Ambedkar became the chairman of the committee drafting the Constitution of India from the Constituent Assembly debates to build a sustainable democratic system for all Indians. The way he cooperated with Nehru, Vallabhbhai Patel, and other Congress leaders in the Constituent Assembly and also in the Cabinet showed what goals he had set for himself.
Whether we agree with the non-violent or violent character of it, the freedom struggle reached its goal under Gandhi’s broad leadership. His idea of gram swaraj and national swaraj dwelt broadly within the framework of democracy. He stood for the abolition of untouchability, if not the varna system.
We briefly outline the careers of the eight founders we selected which will illustrate why we have chosen them.
1) Gandhi played a key role in making the nationalist movement a mass movement. Whether we agree with the non-violent or violent character of it, the freedom struggle reached its goal under his broad leadership. His idea of gram swaraj (village self-rule) and national swaraj dwelt broadly within the framework of democracy. He stood for the abolition of untouchability, if not the varna (social stratification based on caste) system. Gandhi played a key role in stopping communal riots after Partition and formed the drafting committee of the Constitution under Ambedkar, while making Nehru the first Prime Minister and Vallabhbhai Patel the Deputy Prime Minister. He knew what the democratic set-up would be once the Constitution was adopted.
2) Ambedkar began working to free Indians from colonial rule and caste oppression from 1927 onwards. He played several roles that aided in making India a constitutional democracy. He was the only political thinker who drew democratic lessons from Buddhism and put in place a workable Constitution for the nation. As the first Law Minister, he was responsible for making sure the Indian legal system was on track. Through his work and writings during the colonial period, he left a strong imprint on India on the idea of equality, both in theory and practice. He guided the Constituent Assembly debates to a democratic synthesis. He laid down the foundation to curb authoritarianism and wrote several books that aimed to transform India into a civil and egalitarian society.
Amrut Kaur was the only woman cabinet member in 1947 and played a pivotal role in shaping health institutions in India till 1964. She was unmarried and donated all her property to health and educational institutions.
3) Nehru began his activism in 1920 with a kisan (farmer) march in Uttar Pradesh and remained active in the anti-colonial movement despite being jailed nine times. As a Congress leader, strategist, thinker, writer, and our first prime minister for 17 years, he was the central pillar of our democratic system. He played a critical and decisive role in working out a constitutional framework with a strong respect for fundamental rights and putting it into practice in a brutally casteist and class-divided society. He was responsible for stabilising democracy in India while it failed to take root in many neighbouring countries even during his lifetime.
4) Vallabhbhai Patel began his anti-British campaign in 1918 with the Kheda farmers’ agitation. He gave up a prosperous legal practice when he joined the Congress in 1917 and became a mass leader second only to Gandhi after the Bardoli movement. He mobilised people and money to fight the British, and became first Shudra Congress president in 1931. As Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister, he played a key role in bringing the princely states into the Indian Union. He also played a critical role in promoting a consensus in the Constituent Assembly. Though he did not write much, he was the most influential of the administrators who worked to put the young Indian nation state on its feet.
Jaipal Munda was the most enlightened Adivasi member of the Constituent Assembly and advocated drafting of constitutional provisions for tribal liberation from internal caste-class exploitation.
5) Rajkumari Amrut Kaur came from a royal family, but she gave up everything and joined the freedom struggle after her higher education in Oxford University in 1918. She had grown up as a Christian woman and saw the liberation of all women from bondage and the freedom of Indians from British rule as her primary goal. Though she was a part of many Gandhian movements, she developed her independent views on women’s rights, education, and health. She was a founder-member of the All India Women’s Conference in 1927. She played a significant role in the Constituent Assembly in formulating equal rights for women of all religions, castes, and tribes. She was the only woman Cabinet member in 1947 and played a pivotal role in shaping health institutions in India till 1964. She was unmarried and donated all her property to health and educational institutions. She combined in herself an indomitable nationalism with an international vision of a democratic and developing India.
6) Abul Kalam Azad was a staunch Muslim nationalist who was with the Congress and became the party’s youngest president at 35 in 1923. When Mohammed Ali Jinnah planned to form a separate Muslim nation, Azad’s preference was for a united India. He was a scholar, politician, writer, thinker, journalist, and educationalist, who had never studied in England. He played a critical role in keeping many Muslim regions and people in India during Partition. As a learned member of the Constituent Assembly, Azad played a significant role in drafting the Constitution. During the freedom struggle, he established educational institutions for Muslims to bring them into the modern era. As the first Education Minister of India, he established many new institutions of higher learning and the University Grants Commission. His scholarly writings helped many in the Muslim community realise the importance of building a democratic system with adult franchise.
Dakshayani Velayudhan was … the first Scheduled Caste woman graduate in India, and a member of the Cochin Legislative Council and one of the nine female members of the Constituent Assembly that had 389 representatives.
7) Jaipal Singh Munda was the son of tribal farmer in Jharkhand, an Oxford-educated intellectual, a world-famous hockey player, a teacher, a tribal rights leader, and a freedom fighter. He established the Adivasi Mahasabha in 1939 and worked for the liberation of India from the British and also Adivasis from internal oppression and exploitation. He was the most enlightened Adivasi member of the Constituent Assembly and advocated drafting constitutional provisions for tribal liberation from internal caste-class exploitation. He worked hard to keep the Nagas and other rebelling tribals within the Indian Union and at the same time popularised the idea of Adivasis forming their own states to promote their development.
8) Dakshayani Velayudhan was from a Dalit Pulaya family from Ernakulam in Kerala. She was among the first women from her community to wear an upper cloth, the first Scheduled Caste woman graduate in India, and a member of the Cochin Legislative Council (1945) and one of the nine female members of the Constituent Assembly that had 389 representatives. From 1946 to 1952, she served as the first and only Scheduled Caste member of the Constituent Assembly and the Provisional Parliament of India. She emphasised equality in all spheres and believed that a “moral” aspect of human life and the principles of the Constitution were fundamental requisites to annihilate caste inequalities. She was an intellectual politician, who, as the editor of Common Man, a magazine published from Madras, educated many of the depressed classes on their rights. A close associate of Gandhi she worked till her death in 1978 to establish a healthy democracy and its supporting institutions in India.
Ideologically, we do not agree with some of the founders, but we recognise their role in ushering in democracy to this country. They too dreamt of India turning into an aspirational society but respected its diversity. It is therefore necessary to remember that aspirations cannot simply be met through rhetoric or charisma. These thinkers delved deeply to craft a healthy grammar of politics without being carried away by the aura of the freedom movement. In this Amrit Kaal, the regressive approach towards nationalism has to be shunned to enable democracy to progress, excel, and, more importantly, protect its own future.
All of them were experts in modern constitutionalism, the principles of democracy, and moral and ethical basis of the institutions that had to be built by Indians.
Why only these eight? Why are freedom fighters such as Bose and Savarkar not on the list? We are of the opinion that a founding father or mother should have played the following roles: (1) they dedicated themselves to participation in the anti-colonial struggles; (2) they had a clear idea of establishing a democratic political system with a written constitution and a commitment to human equality—both among the sexes and within them—with no acknowledgement of caste or hierarchy; and (3) they played a concrete role in the pre- and post-1947 process of introducing democracy and the institutions it needed to India.
Apart from participating in the freedom struggle with militant approaches of their own, Bose and Savarkar had no vision of democracy, equality, and the constitutionalism that had to be set in motion in post-colonial India. Neither in their writings nor speeches are such formulations available.
The other names that Modi mentioned do not qualify because they played varied roles in colonial struggles and post-colonial politics with their own ideology. They could be respected if we agree with their ideologies. But they certainly cannot be counted as among the founding fathers of India’s constitutional democracy.
Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd is a socio-political theorist, social activist, and author. His latest book is The Shudras – Vision for New Path, co-edited with Karthik Raja. He is currently the Vice President of Amrutha Sathaiah Kolluri Educational Society (ASKES), Tellapur, Telangana.
Pallikonda Manikanta is a Phule-Ambedkarite researcher and activist from Telangana, who teaches political science. He is currently associated with ASKES, and writes on anti-caste thought and politics, the politics of Hindu nationalism, and the political culture of Telangana.
This article was last updated on September 06, 2022
https://www.theindiaforum.in/article/who-are-true-founding-fathers-and-mothers-indian-democracy
-
Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd And The Loneliness Of A Bahujan Academic
There are many moments in Ilaiah’s memoir, ‘From a Shepherd Boy to an Intellectual’, that speak to anyone looking to sustain a life of reading and writing.
Apr 19, 2019, 10:54 PM EDT
A young Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd once came across a book on Isaiah Berlin in the Osmania University library and picked it up because he thought the name was Ilaiah Berlin. He was surprised because he had never found names that sounded like his on the covers of books. In class, he was constantly made to feel like he was not as respectable as the other students because of his name. But that was going to change now.
“I looked at the name once again. I felt as if I were Isaiah, not Ilaiah.”
I like to imagine that this is the moment Kancha Ilaiah became a writer. When Gabriel Garcia Marquez read the first line of Kafka’s Metamorphosis, he almost fell off the bed because he had no idea writers were allowed to write like that (“When Gregor Samsa woke up one morning from unsettling dreams, he found himself changed in his bed into a monstrous vermin”). Marquez says he became a writer that day—that first line was like a permission for him to start writing.
For Dalit and Bahujan people who have never thought of themselves as writers, a permission like that can rescue them in ways that aren’t easy to understand.
“That day in my notebook, I wrote my name in full in the form that Isaiah’s name figured: Ilaiah Kancha, not just Ilaiah K. It sounded new. I jumped up and down amidst the book racks—a worthless name like mine is very much like that of a world-famous historian and philosopher.”
There are many such moments in Kancha Ilaiah’s memoir, From a Shepherd Boy to an Intellectual, that are powerful to anyone looking to sustain a life of reading and writing.
If finding Isaiah’s name released Ilaiah in some form, his mother was released from something similar when she decided that she was willing to risk Saraswathi’s wrath by sending both her sons to school.
′Getting free from Saraswathi’, easily the most exciting chapter in the book, narrates the story of how Ilaiah and his brother went to school despite their grandmother’s persistent warnings that Saraswathi, who didn’t like children of lower-castes going to school, would kill them. In hindsight, there is truth to this superstition because we very well know who killed Rohith Vemula.
“Saraswathi teaches the children of Bapanollu and Komatollu but she becomes a devil when it comes to our children. She will not allow our children to read and write. She will kill them. That is how my elder son died,” said Ilaiah’s mother.
Even so, there was nothing in the school that could hold his attention the way forests and fields did. “In the field-world, one does not focus one’s eyes on just one thing.” And that’s why, for some time in school, he could only stare at walls.
Staring at walls is possibly a situation that is as much an imposition of caste today as it was back then.
At a talk about Mahatma Phule recently in Bangalore, anti-caste activist Gowri recollected that as a science student, she had no idea how to follow what the teacher said in her “high-speed English”.
“I still don’t know what this Kinetic theory of gas means. I didn’t know how to ask and when I finally formed a question and asked, my classmates looked at me like I was crazy. After that I just shut up.”’
That is one kind of staring at a wall. Here is another:
A couple of months ago, I met a Dalit boy studying political science at a college in Bangalore who wanted to know how to ‘be’ in the classroom. He said that during lectures, all his attention is usually focused on forming a question for the lecturer, and framing it properly in English. Eventually, when he does ask it, he is so relieved and overwhelmed by the effort that he spends the rest of the time recovering from it. In the end, he hasn’t listened to the answer.
These are real problems for Dalit and Bahujan students on campuses today—this knowledge of how to just ‘be’ in spaces. After a point, there are things that even the most sympathetic teacher cannot give them—things like cultural capital, the courage to say ‘I don’t care what my classmates think of me’, and a way of simply surviving in an English-speaking classroom.
“These are real problems for Dalit and Bahujan students on campuses today—this knowledge of how to just ‘be’ in spaces”
Another serious problem, just as relevant today, is the disconnect they feel between what they have heard and watched while growing up and what is taught inside the classroom.
While learning the alphabet, Ilaiah was very puzzled when the teacher said ‘Rruu for Rrushi’. This was accompanied by a picture of a saint with “fully grown knotted hair on his head with a beard and legs folded under him”.
Ilaiah had never seen a saint before and found it bizarre that he had to remember a letter in honour of someone he had never seen. He was just as lost when poems and lessons on Krishna were taught. Culturally, there was no connection between what was being done in class and where he came from.
For Ilaiah, a way out of this came when he fell in love with the English language. This allowed him to break free of all kinds of Saraswathis, and he was able to begin enjoying school. -
Why Amit Shah’s push for regional language-based higher education is a deceptive game
By asking the rural masses to educate their children in regional languages, Amit Shah wants to put them in their classic place of language disadvantage, writes Kancha Ilaiah.
VOICES OPINION THURSDAY, AUGUST 25, 2022 – 10:54
Until not so long ago, Union Home Minister Amit Shah used to be an ardent proponent of the ‘one nation, one language’ theory, choosing to repeatedly promote Hindi as that ‘one language’. Once the south Indian states made their opposition to such a proposal clear, with even Prime Minister Narendra Modi and RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat stating that all languages are Indian and equally preferable, he has now shifted gears. Thus, Shah, who is by all indications the PM candidate of the RSS/BJP combine after Modi, is now of the opinion that the promotion of regional languages is essential to unlock the full potential of Indian talent.
On August 19, while speaking on the occasion of the second anniversary of the launch of National Education Policy 2020 (NEP) in Delhi, the Union Home Minister said that law, medicine and engineering should all be taught in Indian languages. Research and development can only be done when one thinks in their own language, and this is one of the reasons that India is lagging in the research field, he argued in the presence of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.
It is a known fact that after Karnataka, the RSS/BJP combine is hoping to come to power in Telangana. And with his new theory, Shah is aiming to become an acceptable leader in south India too. Featured Videos from TNM
In the south, however, the consciousness of English medium education has expanded more deeply than what it was earlier. In every village here, there is a hunger to acquire a place in global employment markets. The rural mass has also realised that English education is the key for national and international mobility. Regional language-based higher education, meanwhile, would not allow them to go beyond their linguistic state. At the same time, the upper and middle classes have already moved out of regional language education, and private English medium education is the source of their new power, authority and wealth. They will not step back into regional language education.
This realisation was what forced the Andhra Pradesh and Telangana governments to shift to English medium school education in the government sector. Assuming that the BJP comes to power in Telangana, will the medium shift back to Telugu in government schools?
That is exactly what Amit Shah means, and it will be the most backward step for the village masses of Telangana. In fact, government schools’ potential return to Telugu medium will have a worse negative impact on the people than even the stopping of the Rythu Bandhu and Dalit Bandhu welfare schemes.
Amit Shah, who himself educated his son Jay Shah in a world class English medium school, also knows that all his corporate friends are opening English medium private schools of global standards for the rich. It is not for them that his regional language education agenda will be implemented. Instead, he wants to put the rural masses in their classic place of language disadvantage, by asking them to educate their children in regional languages.
English medium school education, along with quality infrastructure and teaching staff, is an investment for quality nation building with a globally integrated approach. The RSS/BJP combine is against the educational equality provided through English medium school education. They stand for Sanskrit and Hindi ideologically, while using English surreptitiously. But the masses, as we have seen in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, are for educational equality with global connectivity. Amit Shah’s idea for regional language education in research, medicine, engineering and so on will prove to be disastrous for those who would be part of that system. He is playing a deceptive game.
Though the TRS government has to do much more on the field to improve the school education system in the state, its first step towards introducing English medium in all government schools was an ideological and egalitarian education programme. Unfortunately, the TRS leaders are not informing the state’s people that the BJP’s educational policy is against the English medium programme they have introduced in government schools, accompanied by mirror-image two-language books and improved teaching skills.
Look at the way Delhi’s AAP government has pushed the RSS/BJP to a defensive corner with their campaign about their school education system. Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal turned it into a global campaign of credibility. In fact, the recent New York Times report on Delhi school education has become a weapon in the AAP’s armoury to fight the BJP’s threats of arresting Manish Sisodia, the Delhi Education Minister.
In Telangana, though the TRS introduced English medium in government schools from this academic year, they do not think of it as a major ideological welfare issue that can be used to fight the anti-English Amit Shah in particular, and RSS/BJP forces in general. Neither the father (CM K Chandrasekhar Rao) nor the son (KT Rama Rao) has spoken anywhere about this programme of theirs, because their blinkered understanding of English medium school education does not let them see it as a vote mobiliser.
In the south, only the YSR Congress Party, particularly Andhra Pradesh CM YS Jagan Mohan Reddy, has understood the potential of English medium education in village government schools. While all states in south India have a percentage of English medium government schools, it is only Andhra Pradesh under Jagan Mohan Reddy that has made the push to convert all government schools to English medium. A year ago, Jagan had also announced the compulsory introduction of the English medium at all undergraduate colleges in the state. The TDP is in a mess in the state because of this English education, coupled with the Amma Vodi programme. Nobody can dare treat good English medium school education for all children as ‘freebies’. No court, no legislative body can condemn the expenditure on school education as a ‘freebie’.
In Andhra Pradesh, English medium school education is going to be a huge vote mobiliser in the 2024 elections. The defeat of both TDP and BJP is already a done deal here, mostly because of the school education battle that Jagan Mohan Reddy is fighting on a daily basis. The masses have seen its light on the faces of their children by now. It is that battle by Andhra Pradesh that also made it easy for the TRS government to introduce the same in Telangana without any opposition. But it has not yet tapped its potential in the voting booth.
If Telangana pulls off a proper campaign on its school education system, every mother will go to the polling booth to defeat her child’s enemy. Every rural mother is a better nationalist than Amit Shah.
Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd is a political theorist, social activist and author. He has been campaigning for English-medium education in government schools across the country for the last 30 years.
Views expressed are the author’s own.
-
Independent India in 75 Years Has Not Fulfilled All Expectations of the Dalitbahujan
Caste
The future of India and its people of all castes and communities now depends on the survival of the Constitution in its present form.
Photo: PTI
As the country waves flags and celebrates the 75th anniversary of India’s independence, it is also time to take stock. What did India’s founders and citizens dream of, how has India fared, what have been our challenges and successes?
The Wire’s reporters and contributors bring stories of the period, of the traumas but also the hopes of Indians, as seen in personal accounts, in culture, in the economy and in the sciences. How did the modern state of India come about, what does the flag represent? How did literature and cinema tackle the trauma of Partition?
Illustration: Pariplab Chakraborty
India is celebrating its 75 years of democratic existence. The Union government designated the celebration as “Amrit Mahostav”. Normally in global parlance it should be the ‘Diamond Jubilee’ of India’s Independence.
By 1947 when India got Independence, in many villages the life and human disconnectivity was such that the Dalitbahujan (the OBC/SC/ST oppressed and exploited castes as I defined in Why I Am Not a Hindu, 1996) masses did not even know what was Independence and what was colonialism. The masses who are aspiring for equality, self- respect, dignity and state and private industrial sector employment now, existed mostly around animal, artisanal and agrarian economies in the villages and forest and semi-forest zones. Poverty, illiteracy and minimal mortality rate of life were all around them.
In pre-Independence India the state for them was an extractor of resources, without the hope of offering welfare. There was no positive understanding of the state among them because it was a merciless exploiter.
Though the peasant and Adivasi revolts against the British rulers took place in several parts of India before the freedom struggle started, they were not seriously connected to the First War of Independence of 1857 and the role of such rebellious leaders was not acknowledged. The food producers, without any written history of their own, fought against the British and princely rulers for their survival. Among all of them, the sections of the Dalits – Untouchables of India – were in a hopeless condition.
At the upper end of the freedom struggle there were hardly any foreign English educated intellectual leaders representing their interests, except B.R. Ambedkar. He initiated an intellectual philosophical discourse about freedom from external and internal oppressive systems of colonialism, casteism and historical illiteracy. His 1936 book The Annihilation of Caste, which was an extension of Mahatma Phule’s Gulamgiri (1873), but there were hardly any educated Dalitbahujan to understand and follow their ideas.
The dominant Independence paradigm was set by Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, broadly formulating an agenda for freedom from British rule without bothering much about internal social reform.
In the South, Periyar Ramasamy Naikar carried out massive mobilisational work of the lower castes with an ideology of Dravidian Nationalism, which registered recognition, but was seen as sub-regional and negativist. Many English educated North Indian intellectuals having come from the Dwija – Brahmin, Baniya, Kayastha, Khatri – background, both liberal and right-wing were comfortable with the idea that the Indian nation should be constructed around the notions of ‘Aryan’ (Raja Rammohun Roy, Dayananda Saraswati to K.P. Jayaswal to V.D. Savarkar used the racial notion Aryan as pan Indian) and ‘Brahmn’ identities. For a long time in the post-colonial discourses of Dwija intellectuals in the universities and outside, the Dalit and Dravidian identities were seen as narrow identitarian but not nationalist. Not only that, Ambedkar’s Dalit and Periyar’s Dravidian discourses were condemned as sectarian and narrow indentitarian. The communist Dwija intellectuals broadly went with the same narrative.
Dalitbahujan and the minority question
Further, the freedom struggle did not register the Dalitbahujan question as much as the Muslim minority question in the backdrop of Two-Nation theory of Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Allama Iqbal and the subsequent partition of the sub-continent. With the 1947 partition and communal carnage, Ambedkar and Pariyar’s efforts to institutionalise reservations for Dalitbahujan were not given any importance in the electoral and ideological realms.
Till the 1990 the Mandal movement started, everything revolved around Congress secularism and RSS’s anti-Muslim Hindutva agendas. The Nehruvian secular nationalism and M.S. Golwalkar’s Hindutva nationalism occupied dominant space in the literary, cultural and political realms. There were hardly any OBC intellectuals to understand these discourses.
The left, by and large headed by educated, middle-class Dwija intellectuals remained around class ideology and international communist guidance with blind opposition to the caste question and also to constitutional democracy. They were opposing the Ambedkarite constitution from a proletariat stand point of view, as the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh was opposing from the Manuvadi point of view.
In the post-Mandal era the left is the worst loser as it has not evolved a suitable indigenous ideological and political organisational pattern. They wanted to finish Ambedkar but Ambedkar finished them.
The Hindutva forces, on the other hand, in the post-Mandal phase, reworked their political programme with a theory of Social Engineering by re-examining their position on caste. Narendra Modi, an ambassador of the Gujarati capitalists, with an OBC certificate, was brought onto the national scene by the RSS/BJP combine. After the 2014 parliament elections they started giving space to OBCs which the Congress was giving to Muslims without reducing the Dwija space in their power structure. This is a new and unexpected method of gaining majority in the parliament by Hindutvavadis.
The SC/ST reserved space remained the same as ever, except the RSS/BJP speak openly about caste identities, including that of Dalit and Adivasi. Putting a Dalit (Ram Nath Kovind) president in the Rastrapati Bhavan in 2017 and an Adivasi woman president (Droupadi Murmu) in 2022 with an aggressive caste identity campaign by the the RSS/BJP combine weakened the Congress and the regional parties in the North.
The Congress and the left have no such ideological policy to accept the caste identity question so openly. They still hang around secularism, religious diversity and class questions for electoral mobilisation, but that ideology has limitations in a changed an ideology combined of Mandal and Hindutva. The OBCs also developed a negative view of minorityism as they wanted a share in power at all levels that the Congress denied them all along.
One critical shift in the Dalitbahujan ideological framework after the RSS/BJP started giving them visible space in the post-2014 elections is that OBC/SC/ST and minority unity has lost out. The SC/ST/OBC organisations for a long time worked with an ideology of integrating the minorities, particularly Muslims. But they slowly realised that the Muslims never came into that block during the whole post-Mandal phase. They were getting a share in Delhi power in the non-BJP alliance governments. During that whole period the Shudra-OBCs (there are Muslim OBCs in India) felt that the Congress was against them.
The Muslims also did not accept the Phule-Ambedkarite ideology. Perhaps for them it was not fitting into their Islamic spiritual ideological conservatism. The Muslims by and large remained with the Congress or some regional parties for electoral purposes and for their community welfare. Since the 2014 parliament elections, the RSS/BJP has given space to the OBCs which the Congress gave to Muslims. This is a major ideological shift and new identity and aspiration realisation. This strengthened the Hindutva bloc and therefore it became more and more anti-Muslim in particular and anti-minorities in general.
But the Hindutva forces are totally silent about caste-based inequalities within the Hindu religion. In that domain, Manudharma operates in the same classical mode.
In spite of several odds, Ambedkar managed to institutionalise the SC/ST reservation formula in the face of massive resistance from the Dwija leaders and intellectuals within the framework of the Constitution. This constitutional guarantee of reservation for SC/STS both in education, employment and also electoral representation led to the emergence of Dalit intellectual and political leaders. Periyar Ramasmy and the DK/DMK movements and politics kept the OBC reservation issue alive till 1990. Subsequently with the Mandal movement and implementation of the Mandal Commission Report by the V.P. Singh government in 1990, the OBC question took a serious turn, what Christophe Jaffrelot called a ‘silent revolution’.
But that revolution now revolves around Hindutva accommodation and co-option.
The neo-middle-class OBCs killed that revolutionary spirit by power sharing politics with the forces of Hindutva. This is a new phenomenon but the responsibility largely is that of the Congress and left-liberal silent Brahminism. Minorityism at the cost of OBC/SC/ST share in Delhi power in the name of multiculturalism landed India in the lap of Hindutva forces.
The Dalitbahujan ideology took a sharp turn after the Mandal movement and slipped into sharing power with Hindutva forces, which poses a threat to the present constitution and democracy, as the RSS has not given up its Manudharma ideology. The Dwija monopoly crony capital is acquiring massive private capital through the privatisation ideology of the RSS. The zero employment growth is a Hindutva growth.
A decisive change
The issue is not just reservation and representation in the elected bodies. Mandal changed the national, socio-political and economic structures quite decisively. This brought about a silent revolution in the life of OBC/Dalit/Adivasis, as it brought caste inequality to massive public and intellectual scrutiny. But the Mandir agenda killed the spirit of that revolution and the danger is that there is no national alternative to the Hindutva governing forces, as the Congress has lost direction and organisational ability.
Any amount of Muslim support to the Congress cannot match the OBC support base of the BJP.
The ‘class-not-caste’ intellectual paradigm of the left-liberals was attacked in every sphere of life. Anti-caste political mobilisation, in spite of the left-liberal and Hindutva resistance for some time immediately after Mandal movement and the OBC identity consciousness, has shaken the foundation of the Congress and left parties.
The saga of 75 years of Independence is a saga of struggles for the Dalitbhujan with the weapons handed down by Mahatma Phule, Periyar Ramasamy and Ambedkar. The real future of the nation depends on the very survival of this Constitution at least till the Centenary Celebration of Independence in 2047.
Being in my 70s, 25 years from now, I will not be there to see that great day of 100 years of Constitutional democracy. But I hope that democracy will survive, to ensure a good future for the children who are born and yet to be born from all castes, communities and religions till 2047 and beyond, for many more centuries to come.
Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd is a political theorist, social activist and author. He is the author ofWhy I Am Not a Hindu: A Shudra Critique of Hindutva Philosophy, Culture and Political Economy,and ofPost-Hindu India: A Discourse in Dalit-Bahujan Socio-Spiritual and Scientific Revolution, The Shudras–Vision for New Pathco-edited with Karthik Raja Kuruppusamy, Buffalo Nationalism and so on.
-
How the Tricolour can inspire us, the Bahujan, to fight for freedom in its truest sense | Forward Press
Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd writes about imagining the nation and the flag not in terms of who were or are in power – Nehru and Modi – but in terms of the philosophers and leaders – Phule and Ambedkar – who fought for freedom in its truest sense, that is the complete freedom of the Shudra/Ati-Shudra and Adivasi productive forces
The accompanying illustration shows Mahatma Jotirao Phule – who died in 1890, that is 57 years before India achieved freedom – and Dr B.R Ambedkar, who was part of the National Flag approval committee in July 1947, hoisting the Indian national flag together. It is a picture that brings together the two most creative Shudra/Dalit minds, in their colonial times’ classical self-respecting attire.
They are hoisting the Tricolour (I am deliberately not using the Hindi term ‘Tiranga’) that has a Buddhist Ashoka Chakra at its centre. It was Ambedkar who insisted on the Ashoka Chakra as against Charkha of Gandhi which was proposed by many of his followers in the committee. It appears that Pandit Jawharlal Nehru went with Ambedkar on this. The wheel is a symbol of constant movement of time in developmental progress – a symbol for transporting people and grain from place to place. It is against stagnation of all forms.
The original wheel of King Ashoka was that of a bullock cart, not of a war chariot. Even a modern airplane can’t do without wheels. Without a wheel, at any stage of human history, nothing moves. A wheel is thus integral to the process of continuation of human civilization. The role of the wheel comes to end only with the end of humanity. But a charkha is not such a universal symbol of civilization. The credit for identifying the wheel as this great symbol of civilization and as worthy of a place on our national flag goes solely to Ambedkar.
Cutting to the present, the Congress circulated pictures of Nehru holding the national flag, while the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) responded by portraying Narendra Modi as the owner of the flag. In contrast, the flag the Phule-Ambedkar Centre for Philosophy and English Training, Hyderabad, visualized the nation and the flag not in terms of who were or are in power – Nehru and Modi – but in terms of the philosophers and leaders – Phule and Ambedkar – who fought for freedom in its truest sense, that is the complete freedom of the Shudra/Ati-Shudra and Adivasi productive forces. The flag reflects freedom, liberty, equality and fraternity of all Indians.
Phule was the first creative Indian thinker and author of the first human-liberative Indian book Gulamgiri (Slavery) and Ambedkar was a philosophical and legal expert who saw to it that those ideals became part of the Constitution and the national flag. He wrote the most powerful books of the freedom movement, “Annihilation of Caste” and of course the Constitution of India. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh’s second Sarsangsanchalak, who was also its main theoretician, opposed the great liberative principles of liberty, equality and fraternity and the tricolour flag. He condemned them as foreign. He said “Our leaders have set up a new flag for our country. Why did they do so? It is just a case of drifting and imitating. How did this flag come into being? During the French Revolution, the French put up three stripes on their flag to express the triple ideas of ‘equality’, ‘fraternity’ and ‘liberty’. The American Revolution inspired by similar principles took it up with some changes. Three stripes therefore held a sort of fascination for our freedom fighters also. So, it was taken up by the Congress.”
If they were in power in 1947 they would have straightaway adopted Manu Dharma Shastra as the constitution and the saffron flag with the swastika at its centre. India would have entered a civil war, not between Hindus and Muslims but with the Shudra-Dalit-Adivasis on one side and the Dwijas on the other. Mahatma Phule, Shahuji Maharaj, Ambedkar, Periyar Ramasamy Naikar and other Bahujan heroes had prepared the ground for rebellion against forces like the RSS. Now they have accepted the Constitution and the Tricolour. But I am not sure what direction Indian democracy will take by 2047, when the country turns 100.
RSS’s second sarsangchalak M.S. Golwalkar is opposed to liberty, equality and fraternity because the entire brahmanical literature, and the life practice of its proponents right from the days of composing the Rigveda have been against human equality. The Shudra/Dalit/Adivasi forces were not allowed to produce intellectuals to write and build an alternative system.
I am happy that the national flag that Golwalkar opposed as foreign in thought and spirit is being hoisted in every house. This will certainly pique the interest of the younger generations, even in villages and small towns, in its history and evolution.
The Hindutva forces in 1947 opposed the Tricolour – red, white and green with the Ashoka Chakra at its centre – on very communal grounds. The red was considered the colour of the communists, though the communists themselves also opposed the flag as it was seen as the representative flag of the comprador bourgeoisie forces. However, saffron took the place of the red. In my view, the red in the flag represented revolution and change. The white represents peace and harmony. The RSS did not accept that kind of peace outside of the “peace” sustained by the varnadharma. It never accepted that Ashoka was the most respectable ruler, because he became Buddhist, and the Ashoka Chakra in their view represents Buddhism not Brahmanism. Let us not forget that there was no Hinduism during Ashoka’s times. What was in control of civil society that Ashoka disturbed was brahmanical, not Hindu. Let us also not forget that for a long time, the RSS promoted Samudra Gupta as the greatest king of ancient India, not Ashoka.
The green certainly signifies nature, agriculture and production. The 2020-21 historic farmers’ struggle of North India used the national flag because the green in the flag represents the greenery of their crops and the environmentalism of the world.
The Shudra-Dalit-Adivasi masses of India see the freedom, the constitution and national flag as legacies of Mahatma Jotirao Phule, Savitribai Phule, Ambedkar, Periyar, Jaipal Singh Munda and other Bahujan heroes.
The accompanying photo of Phule and Ambedkar jointly hoisting the national flag reflects 75 years of survival of our democracy, and the constitution and the flag they gave us. We take a pledge on this occasion that we will not allow any force on this earth to tear down the present Constitution, the Tricolour and the democratic institutions that we built in this country with our sweat and blood.
-
Anti-CAA to farmer protests—India’s productive masses are giving real meaning to Tiranga
Only a few other movements in the last 75 years of Independent India have held the national flag as dear as Dalits, Shudras, Adivasis did. It’s a new landmark.
Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd 
An elderly woman at a protest site with the Indian national flag or the Tiranga | Pexels
On the occasion of India’s diamond jubilee celebration, there is a significant discussion about the importance of our national flag. The Bharatiya Janata Party has showcased the ‘Har Ghar Tiranga’ campaign along with the photo of Prime Minister Narendra Modi on its Twitter account. The Congress has showcased the national flag with the first PM Jawaharlal Nehru’s photo next to it. The Communists, as usual, have remained indifferent to the national flag debate as they love their own red flag more.
The Congress and the BJP have their own party flags to hoist high and keep on their persons. And if necessary, on the top of their own ghar (home) to declare their political identities. However, it is important to look at the national flag from the point of view of India’s productive communities who, in caste terms, constitute the Shudras, the Dalits, and the Adivasis.
Quite interestingly, the 2019 protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act exclusively used the Tricolour and the Constitution. Even the recent nationwide protests against former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma’s remarks on Prophet Muhammad saw the national flag being used. While the 2020-2021 farmers’ movement did see the Khalistani and various associations’ flags making their way into the protests, the Indian flag flew high.
Only a few other movements in the last 75 years of Independent India have held the national flag as dear to themselves as these protestors did. These movements were a new landmark in the nationalist ownership of the Tricolour. Now, it is more genuine and authentic.
‘Saffron’ divide
The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), for a long time, opposed the current Indian flag with the Ashoka Chakra at its centre. M. S. Golwalkar, the second sarsanghchalak of the RSS, in his book Bunch of Thoughts, said: “Our leaders have set up a new flag for our country. Why did they do so? It is just a case of drifting and imitating. How did this flag come into being? During the French Revolution, the French put up three stripes on their flag to express the triple ideas of ‘equality’, ‘fraternity’ and ‘liberty’. The American Revolution, inspired by similar principles, took it up with some changes. Three stripes, therefore, held a sort of fascination for our freedom fighters also. So, it was taken up by the Congress.”
The RSS guru was opposed to the idea of liberty, equality, and fraternity, as they would dismantle the caste and varna-dharma structures that it upholds. The RSS saw the reddish saffron (different from the RSS saffron) in the Tricolour as Communist and the green as Islamic. The Communists, since the early days, have no respect for any other flag except the red flag, which symbolises the proletarian revolution. They have written hundreds of songs on the red flag, as it is the global representative of the working class.
Having approved the three colours—deep saffron, white and green—for the national flag, B.R. Ambedkar, in the Constituent Assembly debates, asked for the Ashoka Chakra to be placed at the centre of the flag instead of the charkha (spinning wheel) that many, including M.K. Gandhi, proposed. Ambedkar, by then, was inclined towards Buddhism.
The national flag was finally adopted in its current form on 22 July 1947 and hoisted at midnight on 15 August. If the BJP were around and in power then, the Tricolour with Ashoka Chakra would not have been the Indian national flag. It would have been a simple saffron flag, maybe with the swastika on it. We do not know what would have happened to India in such troubled Partition times. And we don’t know what it would have meant to the vast masses of Shudras, Dalits, or Adivasis either in such a Dvija-dominated Hindu/Hindutva environment.
Ambedkar chose the blue colour for the flag of the party floated by his Scheduled Castes Federation of India in 1942. It is now the flag colour of the Bahujan Samaj Party.
Owning the Tricolour—in a new way
The new meaning of the national flag comes from the 2020-2021 farmers’ struggle against the farm laws. The Shudras, Dalits, and Adivasis have no other flag to depend so much on as the national flag because it was only after the Tricolour was hoisted at midnight on 15 August 1947 that the victims of the varna system entered a new phase of life. This flag meant liberty, equality, and fraternity — the ideals that Ambedkar also repeatedly upheld while drafting the Constitution. From Golwalkar’s statement above, we can understand how much they hated these ideals that are the lifeblood of the Shudras, Dalits, and Adivasis today.
The deep saffron colour on the top of the Indian national flag indicates the revolution of the masses. The white represents peace that was needed to put an end to caste oppression, exploitation, untouchability, and violence. The green does not mean Islam, as the RSS intellectuals thought, but the greenery of crops, positive, eco-friendly life, food for people and cattle, and so on.
It means what the contemporary world is aiming for right now — environmentalism. Farmers are its human personification in India.
Protect the lifeblood
In modern Indian history, the most authentic representative of farmers was Jyotirao Phule. All his writings focused on the problems of farmers whom he called Shudras and Ati-Shudras. His book Gulamgiri (1873) was the first to reflect the liberty, equality and fraternity aspirations of the productive masses. Ambedkar, as I said, approved the flag by inserting the Ashoka Chakra. The farmers owned it as a part of their national self in their struggle to protect the agrarian economy.
The Constitution, the national flag, and democratic institutions should be protected and continued – they are India’s lifeblood. The freedom fighters, with their diverse views and aspirations, created a ‘modern India’ with its current democratic structures, constitutional ideology, and national symbols. The Constitution is the living embodiment of all that India stands for. The national flag is an expression of the people’s spirit.
While hoisting the flag on every house in villages, towns and buildings, we must keep the spirit of the freedom struggle alive and constantly commemorate the sacrifices of the freedom fighters.
Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd is a political theorist, social activist and author. His most known books are Why I Am Not a Hindu: A Shudra Critique of Hindutva Philosophy, Culture and Political Economy, and Post-Hindu India: A Discourse in Dalit-Bahujan Socio-Spiritual and Scientific Revolution. Views are personal.
(Edited by Humra Laeeq)
Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd 