Roots of Terrorism: In Religion or Politics

Roots of Terrorism: In Religion or in Politics Ram Puniyani Fifteen years ago, on 26 November 2008, Mumbai witnessed a horrific terror attack. Ten terrorists, armed to the teeth, landed in the city via sea route and indiscriminately killed 166 innocent citizens. The chief of the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS), Hemant Karkare, and two other police officers were also killed in these coordinated attacks. Today, as we remember the horrors of 26/11, the impact of another act of terror by Hamas in Israel is very much in the air. The Mumbai attacks fifteen years ago were engineered by Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiaba (LeT). In all the years gone by, many parts of West Asia have witnessed terror acts, such as by the Taliban and the Islamic State or ISIS. In India, Kashmir has also suffered acts of terror, the roots of which lie in its complex political scenario. A section of the dominant media and many political commentators present all these acts as resulting from a common thread—boundary-less religious extremism related to Islam. However, this position ignores the deeper dynamics of these painful acts. However, nothing can be further from the truth. While many terror acts and groups have in common an Islamic identity, the underlying reasons for terrorism are highly varied. The birth of Hamas lies in the injustices heaped upon Palestinians and the total violation of United Nations resolutions by Israel time and again. The issue of Kashmir has another political dynamic altogether. Al Qaeda and ISIS are products of United States-sponsored training camps in Pakistan. Therefore, rather than roots in Islam, the origins of terror acts lie in deeper political issues. One major cause of acts of terrorism is the policies pursued by global superpowers trying to control oil wealth. The imperialists and their allies have their eyes fixed on appropriating global oil resources. In recent years, a central phenomenon that spurred the rise of terrorist groups has been the United States cultivating fundamentalist Islamist groups through the CIA in client states such as Pakistan. The United States’ goal to dominate West Asia due to its “oil hunger" has been brought out very well by many commentators. Their research based on the CIA’s own documents has shown how the CIA funded the training of the Mujahideen, ultimately leading to the formation of Al Qaeda and later ISIS. In his book, Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War and the Roots of Terror (Harmony, 2003), Mahmood Mamdani writes that funding these outfits cost around $8,000 million and 7,000 tons of armaments. On 19 May 2009, then-United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted that her country “came in in the ’80s and helped build up the Mujahideen to take on the Soviet Union in Afghanistan….The Soviet Union fell in 1989, and we basically said, thank you very much…” Many commentators and the mainstream media deliberately underplay how the United States funded madrasas in Pakistan to train Al Qaeda and its clones, who later became Frankenstein monsters for the country. What is also underplayed is how these terrorist outfits have hurt Muslims around the world. The Kashmir imbroglio has different dynamics. When the autonomy promised to Kashmir in Article 370 was undermined in the 1950s and 1960s, the disgruntled youth resorted to violent means instigated by Pakistan’s ISI, which had the backing of the United States. This situation was worsened by the entry of Al Qaeda clones in the 1990s, and the resistance in Kashmir, based on Kashmiriyat, or the synthesis of the region’s Buddhist, Vedantic and Sufi traditions, became a communal issue, and Kashmiri Pandits were targeted as a result. To restate: this terrorism had regional and local political undercurrents and expressed itself in the language of religion. Hamas has a different mechanism as far as its roots and origins are concerned. The Zionists initially declared an intention to settle in Palestine but began to appropriate the land. Further, they blocked any democratic expressions of resistance of Palestinians. It kept expanding the areas under occupation to the extent that, through two major expansions, its existing hyper-representation in the land (55% of land for 30% Jews) expanded the occupation to nearly 90% of Palestine. Zionists are occupiers who constantly try to extend their hold over the Palestinian lands. They resort to ancient holy books to claim that Palestine is their land and they are its chosen people. Their expansionism has reduced the Gaza Strip to an “open prison” and forced the West Bank Arabs to live with tremendous hardships. These three phenomena—Palestine, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban—are propagated as being due to Islamic terrorism. Nothing could be more myopic than this deliberate propaganda about ‘Islamic terrorism’ that the United States media has expounded in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. This propaganda allowed the United States to invade Afghanistan, where it killed 60,000 people. Its oil hunger led it to attack Iraq on the pretext that Iraq had “weapons of mass destruction”, which it did not have. They repeatedly claimed that Iraqis would welcome the invasion of their country and greet the invading army “with flowers and chocolates”. Instead, Iraqis resisted, and the Islamic State was eventually born. The Mumbai terror attacks were also an outcome of sour Indo-Pak relations. As the army dominated Pakistan and was influenced by the United States, it harboured terrorist groups like the Lashkar e Taiba, which the Pakistan Army used to drive a wedge between Pakistan and India. As Pakistan’s civil leadership initiated some peace manoeuvres, the generals, uncomfortable with peace efforts, would unleash trouble—as when Pervez Musharraf occupied Kargil and later came the 26/11 attack. The 26/11 attack also led to the murder of Karkare, who was investigating terrorism cases from Malegaon to the Samjhauta Express, in which the likes of Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur, Swami Aseemanand, and Lt Col Prasad Shrikant Purohit were arrested. Sadhvi is still on bail in the Malegaon blast case and once said she had given a "shraap" or curse to Karkare. While remembering the 26/11 tragedy of Mumbai and the killing of ordinary innocents and police personnel is very important, to think that it was due to religion is off the mark. To club all these geopolitical developments as ‘boundary-less religious extremism’ that is Islamic in nature serves the goals of imperialist nations and their allies who have wrought havoc in West Asia, particularly by training Al Qaeda. The media must go deeper into these developments instead of taking recourse to propaganda or easy ‘answers’ in blaming Muslims and Islam. Terrorism is not a religious but a political phenomenon with a range of instances from the Irish Republican Army to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and innumerable others.

UP: Banning Halal Meat

Uttar Pradesh: Divisive Agenda to the Fore Ram Puniyani A new divisive agenda has taken hold over India’s most populous state—on 18 November, the Uttar Pradesh government banned halal-certified edible items. In the province which has contributed the most prime ministers of India and where the holy sites of Ayodhya and Kashi, revered by the Hindus, are located, the ruling regime seems to have hit upon a pre-election issue to hit the bullseye with its core. Voters who might want to drift away, anguished by the lacklustre economic situation and poor employment record, seem never to lack a polarising issue to galvanise them in Uttar Pradesh. It began decades ago with the Ram Temple issue, but now politics is tuning into the Kashi Vishwanath temple ‘issue’. Meat and meat consumption capture headlines regularly while few note how Uttar Pradesh has become a hub for wandering stray cattle, which are allowed to recklessly roam the streets, creating a nuisance, falling prey to passing cars, if not raiding standing crops and adding to farmers’ economic losses. Politics related to cow slaughter and allegations of eating beef have taken many lives in Uttar Pradesh—the lynching of Akhlaq, Junaid, and Rakbar Khan, among others, sent shockwaves at regular intervals. Still, those ruling the state apparatus seem to have an appetite to repeatedly bring up the meat issue. Uttar Pradesh has paid dearly for communal politics every time it has been raked up. So-called love jihad was drummed into such a heated political issue in the state that it culminated in the Muzaffarnagar violence of 2013. With Adityanath Yogi as the Chief Minister since 2017, the problems of Uttar Pradesh have only grown. The frequency with which hate speeches are made, the raids on meat shops that have devastated the economy of a section of the Muslims and Dalits, and the introduction of bulldozer (in)justice—all have frightening consequences for the disadvantaged groups, and especially for the religious minorities. Interestingly, the ban on halal-certified edible products applies only to the local market. Products meant for export have been excluded, though all meat exported to countries where halal meat is consumed requires halal certification. Halal, in Arabic, simply designates what is permissible as per Islamic religious practices. Halal certification of meat items guarantees that the animals, including poultry, were slaughtered in the prescribed Islamic way. India has no clear nationwide law or rule that requires halal meat to be sold—it has been left to individual preferences. Meat that is exported is, naturally, subject to proper checks for halal certification. The halal trade is economically highly significant—a roughly $3.5 trillion industry—and India has benefitted vastly from the promotion of halal exports. Its significant trading partners are the Organization of Islamic Countries and South East Asian nations. The Uttar Pradesh government has justified the ban by saying that some companies had issued “forged” halal certificates for financial gain—meaning that they did not follow the prescribed rules, but claimed they did. Surprisingly, a communal angle has been inserted into the forgery allegation by claiming that these companies cause social animosity and violate public trust. If the issue is fake halal certificates, why impose a blanket ban on domestic sales? If it is about animosity, where is the evidence? Indeed, a more detailed presentation of the facts of this case known so far is here but was there a need to ban halal certified foods altogether? Does not the state government, along with the Centre, need to thrash out the law it wishes to prescribe, or not, in a more dignified and realistic fashion? According to Mufti Habeeb Yusuf Qasmi, president of the Halal Council of India, the controversy over halal certification reflects the propensity to view every development from a myopic Hindu-Muslim lens. “Halal is about hygiene and purity. It is not a Hindu-Muslim matter but about food,” he said. Indeed, while the meat trade and beef export are associated with Muslims, many prominent companies in the meat and beef trade are from the majority community—Al Kabeer Exports, one of the biggest meat exporters, is owned by Satish Sabharwal, and Sunil Kapoor owns Arabian Exports Pvt. Ltd. There are many such instances. All in all, the ban implies that those who do wish to consume certified halal edibles—which is, of course, the Muslims—would be denied access to these items. The situation is made even more ironic when the state government sees an effort to create a market for halal-certified products as a “conspiracy”. But in the past, the state government’s problem was also with small meat traders, many of whom are Muslims. Immediately after coming to power, the Yogi Adityanath government shut many meat shops, saying they did not have proper licenses. In the end, the Allahabad High Court asked the Yogi Adityanath government under which provision of law were meat shops in the state capital, Lucknow, being forced to shut. It rapped the Lucknow Municipal Corporation for not having taken timely action to renew the licenses of meat shops. Meat has become a major irritant in Uttar Pradesh—one that has repeatedly aided the Uttar Pradesh government in polarising the state’s people and politics. But the politics of the Chief Minister goes beyond food. In a very blunt fashion, he coined the ‘80-20’ term, which implied that he was not banking on getting votes from the Muslims, who are 20% of the population of Uttar Pradesh. He put forward this formulation in an advertisement in a national newspaper, the dog whistle intensifying the communal divide as expected. He also uses the term “abba-jaan”, which means dear father in Urdu, in his speeches to humiliate the Muslim community—he actually accused the community of appropriating food grains meant for all communities. He deliberately attributed the violence in Muzaffarnagar to its Muslim residents, although numerous fact-finding reports have disclosed that the violence was orchestrated in the name of the “security of Hindu girls”. Further, it is not in dispute that the violence led to the large-scale displacement of Muslims from Muzaffarnagar, and that the Jats in the area suffered, too, but their losses were far fewer. Yogi Adityanath recklessly targeted the Muslim residents of Kairana town when he spread myths about the forced displacement of Hindus. It turned out that 346 Hindus had migrated away from Kairana, mainly for economic reasons. Another divisive practice introduced by the Yogi Adityanath government, which other chief ministers of BJP-ruled states have adopted, is of bulldozing residential and commercial properties, mainly of Muslims and the poor, on a variety of pretexts. After the fact, the authorities paper over their actions by making claims about having sent notices and that the bulldozed structure was illegal. Indeed, a structure could be illegal, but are bulldozers the government's only administrative tool against them? From recent experience, it has become evident that bulldozers are selectively used against Muslims and those the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) considers its rivals or opponents. The practice, whatever the pretexts, has devastated coexistence in Uttar Pradesh, especially its Muslim residents. That is why it has been said that “while Yogi Adityanath has called bulldozers a symbol of development and peace and a means to enforce the law, the opposition has criticised his government by calling bulldozer ‘justice’ a violation of the law”. All in all, the ban on halal products for domestic consumption is yet another instance of the divisive policies initiated in BJP-ruled Uttar Pradesh. Halal certification is internationally accepted, and respecting people's feelings is the core of a plural society. Halal products, it must be remembered, are not just meat or culinary items but an array of products and services that inform the lives of many Indian citizens. Whatever the pretext for banning halal certification, this step will worsen the communal divide already prevalent in society. One also must understand that the BJP repeatedly needs to strengthen its divisive core, especially since the Lok Sabha election is due in a few months. The halal ban is yet another issue for the BJP to whip up in the service of sectarian politics. Food habits and personal preferences, guided by the cultural practices of any community, must be respected. What fits the bill in a plural, diverse society should not be outlawed.

Ambedkar: RSS-Two opposite poles of Indian Political spectrum

RSS and Ambedkar: Two Poles of Indian Political Spectrum Ram Puniyani RSS ideology and Ambedkar’s ideology can be called as two opposite poles of the Indian political spectrum. While Ambedkar stands for ‘annihilation of caste’, struggle for democratic values and marching towards social justice, RSS stands for status quo and ‘revival of the hierarchical values system’ of pre modern times. It is ironic that despite these core opposition; RSS ideologues try to make a show of paying respect to Ambedkar in various forums including celebrating his anniversary. So in a way, it was not surprising when RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat in his annual Vijyadashmi speech (October 24, 2024) called upon his followers to read speeches of Ambedkar, particularly the last two speeches delivered by him in the Constituent Assembly. Bhagawat went to the extent of putting Ambedkar in the category of RSS founder and First Sarsanghchalak (Supreme leader) of RSS, Dr. K. B. Hedgewar. The response of RSS types to Ambedkar’s striving has always been to oppose his efforts at ideological level under the garb of ‘our glorious past’. As such the struggle for social justice which initially came up in the form of ‘Non-Brahmin Movement’ in Nagpur area of Vidarbha (1920s) was one of the major reasons for the Landlord-Brahmin alliance to form RSS. In Maharashtra, this alliance is referred to as Shetji-Bhatji (Landlord-Brahmin) Alliance. The dalit awakening began with Jotirao Phule who struggled to open schools for education for dalits. The awakening of this section was backed up and enhanced by Ambedkar starting his paper Mooknayak in 1920 and Bahujan Hitkarini Sabha in 1923. These might have added tremendously to awakening. Later in his pursuit for social justice Ambedkar organized Chavdar Talab movement (access to public drinking water for dalits) in 1927 and Kalaram Temple entry movement in 1930. RSS itself is never known to have come forward to support these movements of Babasaheb. Actually it was Gandhi, who took up the caste issue most seriously and devoted his time exclusively for improving dalit’s plight for the next few years after the Poona Pact of 1932. RSS was propagating Hindu Rashtra. Savarkar was at the forefront of the theory that there are two Nations here, the Hindu Nation and Muslim Nation. This Hindu nation theory propagated by RSS came under severe criticism from Ambedkar as he wrote, "Strange as it may appear, Mr. Savarkar and Mr. Jinnah, instead of being opposed to each other on the one nation versus two nations issue, are in complete agreement about it. Both agree not only agree, but insist that there are two nations in India—one the Muslim nation and the other the Hindu nation." (Dr. B.R. Ambedkar wrote in his well-known book Thoughts on Pakistan, published in 1940.) Ambedkar was totally opposed to the concept of Hindu Nation, “If Hindu Raj does become a fact, it will, no doubt, be the greatest calamity for this country.… Hindu Raj must be prevented at any cost,” wrote B.R. Ambedkar in Pakistan or the Partition of India (1946, pages 354-355). He was against majoritarianism, which in the Indian context meant unbridled rule of the majority community, the Hindus. This is the current dominant ideology of RSS led by Bhagwat as Narendra Modi has come forward to defend it by asking as to what is wrong with Majoritarianism? After the presentation of the final draft of the Constitution, RSS opposition to the draft of the Indian Constitution came from the ‘unofficial mouthpiece’ of the RSS, Organiser. It wrote a scathing piece against the Indian Constitution, Organiser issue for November 30, 1949, carried an editorial stating “The worst [thing] about the new Constitution of Bharat…is that there is nothing Bharatiya about it… [T]here is no trace of ancient Bharatiya constitutional laws, institutions, nomenclature and phraseology in it”. Hindu Code Bill drafted by Ambedkar was a major step in efforts towards loosening the hold of patriarchy and striving for equality of women. The orthodox forces led by RSS frontally attacked it. Ramchandra Guha, the eminent historian of Modern India, writes, “The Sangh opposed the passage of the Hindu Code Bill that sought to give Hindu women the right to marry outside their caste, divorce their husband, and inherit property. In 1949, the RSS organized hundreds of meetings and protests across India to stop the bill, where sadhus and sants came to speak.” The constituent Assembly in its wisdom enunciated the provisions of reservation for SC and STs. Through word of mouth propaganda, these provisions were undermined and defamed leading to anti-Dalit violence in Gujarat in 1980-1981 and again in 1985. Similarly OBC reservation provision, Mandal Commission was indirectly opposed when Rath Yatras for Ram Temple were jacked up and the then major leader of BJP, Atal Bihari Vajpayee stated something to the effect that “They brought Mandal, so brought Kamadal”. Interestingly, RSS combine organized the Babri demolition on 6th December on the death Anniversary of Ambedkar, a tactical move to undermine the importance of this day for democratic values. As far as the status of religious minorities was concerned Ambedkar was for providing full protective clauses for them. Though these clauses have not been implemented in full any time, the attempt to implement them is labeled as ‘minority appeasement’. Babasaheb was for implementing the concept of Fraternity; on the contrary the politics of majoritiarinanism has spread hatred against minorities, leading to violence and polarization of society. The concept of Social democracy was an inalienable part of democracy as far as Ambedkar was concerned. He was for ‘annihilation of caste’. RSS on contrary has founded “Samajik Samrasta Manch” (Social harmony Forum). For RSS different castes were part of the whole giving the strength to Hindu society! In this lies the major opposition between the ideologies of these two streams. Attempt of Hindu majoritarian politics is to maintain the caste hierarchy in newer terminologies. While paying lip service to the Indian Constitution, its ideologues are arguing that India is a ‘Civilizational state’ (symbol for caste and gender hierarchical values in holy books like Manusmriti) for which the Constitution should be secondary! Cleverly while being totally opposed to Ambedkar, ‘RSS Combine’ is paying lip service and now even quoting him. This is a clever ploy meant purely for electoral purposes.

Announced: Upcoming Report on Hindutva in Britain -- zoom launch on Nov 21, 2023

 

Ambedkar and RSS: Two Opposite Poles of Indian Political Spectrum

RSS and Ambedkar: Two Poles of Indian Political Spectrum Ram Puniyani RSS ideology and Ambedkar’s ideology can be called as two opposite poles of the Indian political spectrum. While Ambedkar stands for ‘annihilation of caste’, struggle for democratic values and marching towards social justice, RSS stands for status quo and ‘revival of the hierarchical values system’ of pre modern times. It is ironic that despite these core opposition; RSS ideologues try to make a show of paying respect to Ambedkar in various forums including celebrating his anniversary. So in a way, it was not surprising when RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat in his annual Vijyadashmi speech (October 24, 2024) called upon his followers to read speeches of Ambedkar, particularly the last two speeches delivered by him in the Constituent Assembly. Bhagawat went to the extent of putting Ambedkar in the category of RSS founder and First Sarsanghchalak (Supreme leader) of RSS, Dr. K. B. Hedgewar. The response of RSS types to Ambedkar’s striving has always been to oppose his efforts at ideological level under the garb of ‘our glorious past’. As such the struggle for social justice which initially came up in the form of ‘Non-Brahmin Movement’ in Nagpur area of Vidarbha (1920s) was one of the major reasons for the Landlord-Brahmin alliance to form RSS. In Maharashtra, this alliance is referred to as Shetji-Bhatji (Landlord-Brahmin) Alliance. The dalit awakening began with Jotirao Phule who struggled to open schools for education for dalits. The awakening of this section was backed up and enhanced by Ambedkar starting his paper Mooknayak in 1920 and Bahujan Hitkarini Sabha in 1923. These might have added tremendously to awakening. Later in his pursuit for social justice Ambedkar organized Chavdar Talab movement (access to public drinking water for dalits) in 1927 and Kalaram Temple entry movement in 1930. RSS itself is never known to have come forward to support these movements of Babasaheb. Actually it was Gandhi, who took up the caste issue most seriously and devoted his time exclusively for improving dalit’s plight for the next few years after the Poona Pact of 1932. RSS was propagating Hindu Rashtra. Savarkar was at the forefront of the theory that there are two Nations here, the Hindu Nation and Muslim Nation. This Hindu nation theory propagated by RSS came under severe criticism from Ambedkar as he wrote, "Strange as it may appear, Mr. Savarkar and Mr. Jinnah, instead of being opposed to each other on the one nation versus two nations issue, are in complete agreement about it. Both agree not only agree, but insist that there are two nations in India—one the Muslim nation and the other the Hindu nation." (Dr. B.R. Ambedkar wrote in his well-known book Thoughts on Pakistan, published in 1940.) Ambedkar was totally opposed to the concept of Hindu Nation, “If Hindu Raj does become a fact, it will, no doubt, be the greatest calamity for this country.… Hindu Raj must be prevented at any cost,” wrote B.R. Ambedkar in Pakistan or the Partition of India (1946, pages 354-355). He was against majoritarianism, which in the Indian context meant unbridled rule of the majority community, the Hindus. This is the current dominant ideology of RSS led by Bhagwat as Narendra Modi has come forward to defend it by asking as to what is wrong with Majoritarianism? After the presentation of the final draft of the Constitution, RSS opposition to the draft of the Indian Constitution came from the ‘unofficial mouthpiece’ of the RSS, Organiser. It wrote a scathing piece against the Indian Constitution, Organiser issue for November 30, 1949, carried an editorial stating “The worst [thing] about the new Constitution of Bharat…is that there is nothing Bharatiya about it… [T]here is no trace of ancient Bharatiya constitutional laws, institutions, nomenclature and phraseology in it”. Hindu Code Bill drafted by Ambedkar was a major step in efforts towards loosening the hold of patriarchy and striving for equality of women. The orthodox forces led by RSS frontally attacked it. Ramchandra Guha, the eminent historian of Modern India, writes, “The Sangh opposed the passage of the Hindu Code Bill that sought to give Hindu women the right to marry outside their caste, divorce their husband, and inherit property. In 1949, the RSS organized hundreds of meetings and protests across India to stop the bill, where sadhus and sants came to speak.” The constituent Assembly in its wisdom enunciated the provisions of reservation for SC and STs. Through word of mouth propaganda, these provisions were undermined and defamed leading to anti-Dalit violence in Gujarat in 1980-1981 and again in 1985. Similarly OBC reservation provision, Mandal Commission was indirectly opposed when Rath Yatras for Ram Temple were jacked up and the then major leader of BJP, Atal Bihari Vajpayee stated something to the effect that “They brought Mandal, so brought Kamadal”. Interestingly, RSS combine organized the Babri demolition on 6th December on the death Anniversary of Ambedkar, a tactical move to undermine the importance of this day for democratic values. As far as the status of religious minorities was concerned Ambedkar was for providing full protective clauses for them. Though these clauses have not been implemented in full any time, the attempt to implement them is labeled as ‘minority appeasement’. Babasaheb was for implementing the concept of Fraternity; on the contrary the politics of majoritiarinanism has spread hatred against minorities, leading to violence and polarization of society. The concept of Social democracy was an inalienable part of democracy as far as Ambedkar was concerned. He was for ‘annihilation of caste’. RSS on contrary has founded “Samajik Samrasta Manch” (Social harmony Forum). For RSS different castes were part of the whole giving the strength to Hindu society! In this lies the major opposition between the ideologies of these two streams. Attempt of Hindu majoritarian politics is to maintain the caste hierarchy in newer terminologies. While paying lip service to the Indian Constitution, its ideologues are arguing that India is a ‘Civilizational state’ (symbol for caste and gender hierarchical values in holy books like Manusmriti) for which the Constitution should be secondary! Cleverly while being totally opposed to Ambedkar, ‘RSS Combine’ is paying lip service and now even quoting him. This is a clever ploy meant purely for electoral purposes.

RSS calls for status quo in the guise of emotional unity

RSS: Calling for status quo in the guise of ‘Emotional Unity’ Ram Puniyani Dr. Mohan Bhagwat is the patriarch of the RSS combine, the force behind current political dispensation and many other organizations working for Hindu Nation, in different educational, political, social forums. He gives the directions to this Combine on Vijay Dashmi Day (Dussera) in particular. This reflects the ideology and political agenda of Hindu nationalist majoritarian politics as being spearheaded by this organization. This year (2023) on 24th October he made several points in his speech which clearly show the rephrasing of Second Sarsanghachalak, M.S. Golwalkar’s formulation in his book, ‘Bunch of Thoughts’, where he states that ‘Muslims, Christians and Communists’ are the internal threats to the Hindu Nation. Couched in a deceiving language, Bhagwat states, “‘cultural Marxism’" is "selfish and deceitful" force which seeks to divide the country by taking "control of the media and academia." He continues that these forces "claim to be working for some lofty goals" but their real objectives are to disrupt all "orderliness and morality, beneficence, culture, dignity and restraint" in the world. He also states “These destructive, all-devouring forces call themselves cultural Marxists or Woke, or the awakened ones… Their modus operandi involves taking control of the media and academia, and plunging education, culture, politics and social environment into confusion, chaos, and corruption.” The word ‘woke’ has become a focus of cultural debate of late. It has its origins in the longings of ‘African Americans’ for freeing themselves from the clutches of racism to seek equality. It has also come to symbolize overcoming the fetters of dictatorial, pre-democratic norms imposed on the society by the patriarchy, racial and class hierarchy. The word can now be said to have gone global – conservative politicians in Europe and Australia have mocked ideas of inclusivity as ‘woke’, using it to oppose gender equality and environmental conservation. Writing in The Indian Express on the BBC documentary ‘India: The Modi Question’ (A Documentary on Gujarat Carnage when Modi was Chief Minister of Gujarat, banned in India), RSS leader Ram Madhav wrote that the BBC’s “decline” was because of the rise of “woke culture” in British elites. Same Ram Madhav thinks BBC has declined because of carrying ‘The Modi Question’. Now he backs his Sarsanghchalak by calling for going to our roots (i.e. values around Manusmriti in short), and blames Cultural Marxists for capturing our educational institutions and media. As per him the cultural Marxists have developed a narrative which has projected Hinduism and caste as oppressive, exploitative by equating Hinduism as upper caste hegemony. As per Madhav; call for caste census is divisive. It is true that those influenced by Marxism have called for social change for equality right during the struggle for India’s Independence. It was Bhagat Singh and his Comrades who brought to fore the values of equality. When the Industrialization and modern education seeped in slowly all the progressive forces stood for overthrow of the ideological baggage accompanying the feudal society, the one guided by class, caste and gender hierarchy. It was not only the Communists but also the streams led by Jotirao Phule and Ambedkar who were in the forefront to challenge the oppressive system where dalits and women were dominated by upper caste, where values of patriarchy dominated. Freedom movement led by Gandhi took these up and tried to reach the rebellion against oppressive social practices far and wide and made it an integral part of the freedom movement. Freedom of expression, which also was an integral part of the freedom movement, was also the hallmark of our glorious movement starting from Lokmanya Tilak to Gandhi and Nehru. They all adhered and upheld these values. In tune with the values of the Constitution the progressive people carried on their ethos through their intellectual contributions and interventions in the Universities. The intellectual freedom exercised by these elements solidified our democratic foundations in education system and brought to fore the centers for excellence in intellectual arena like Jawaharlal Nehru University, which through its contribution not only went up to the top of the table but also created large number of writers, bureaucrats, police and other officials serving the country. Surely there was no systematic plan to ‘infiltrate’ the centers for learning as claimed by the two worthies, who are lamenting the deviation from ‘our roots’. For them the whole process of freedom struggle is not a part of our roots. Hindu nationalist assertion that Marxists equated Hinduism with upper caste hegemony is totally false and shows their superficial understanding of our recent past. They forget that the same Ambedkar, to whom they are paying lip service for electoral reasons, was the one who stated that Hinduism is dominated by Brahmanical values. Same Ambedkar pained by the orthodox Hindu ethos, which refused to let dalits have equality; not only presided over the function to burn the Manusmriti but also declared that ‘I was born a Hindu; that was not in my hands, but I will not die a Hindu.’ It is this which led him away from the ‘roots’ which are being upheld by Bhagwat and Madhav. Wokes; liberal people; who want to break the chains of social hierarchy are being looked down by Bhagwat and company. Liberals want to stick to values of the Indian Constitution and dream of achieving the values of the ‘United Nations charter of Human rights’. On the contrary, it is the RSS which has systematically cultivated Sarswati Shishu Mandirs with a curriculum upholding the caste and gender hierarchy. They floated ‘Shiksha Sanskriti Utthan Nyas’ which opposed the rational scholarly works of the likes of Wendy Doniger. Another RSS organization got the brilliant works trying to understand our culture by deleting A. K. Ramanujan’s essay ‘Three Hundred Ramayanas’. These are just a couple of examples. It is not liberal values, which is creating divisiveness, these values stand for freedom from Patriarchy and Caste system. What is causing divisiveness is the anti Minority propaganda spread through innumerable RSS shakhas led by lakhs of Swayamsevaks and thousands of Pracharaks. As far as control on the media is concerned, the less said the better. Since RSS pracharak Lal Krishna Advani became Information & Broadcasting minister in Janata Dal Ministry (1977) , the pro RSS elements have found a place in large numbers in the media. With Modi becoming the Chief Minister of Gujarat, the Corporate Houses have taken over the large sections of media, which is toeing the RSS-BJP line. And last but not the least, these ideologues see the caste census as divisive. As such it is yet another step towards social justice. And of course RSS is opposed to social justice tooth and nail!

Israel- Palestine: need for ceasefire

By Fully Supporting Israel, the West Has Chosen to Forget the Suffering of Palestinians Ram Puniyani With the Hamas's attack on Israel on October 7, Israel and Palestine have plunged into yet another war. The cruelty of both attacks is beyond words, and as always in such wars, common people on both sides are suffering the most. In the aftermath of Hamas's attack on Israel, the major Western powers – America, Britain, France, among others – extended their full solidarity to Israel, and even Prime Minister Narendra Modi issued a statementin support of Israel within hours after it came under attack. Modi who took months to open his mouth on the violence in Manipur, and that too in a very insincere manner, was prompt in conveying his sympathies to Israel. Many columnists fiercely condemned Hamas for starting the war. A number ofprotests have been taking place across world capitals condemning the Israeli regime's treatment of Palestinians, and many such protests are either led or seeing the participation of Jews. Modi's outright support of Israel is in contravention of India's longstanding view of the Israel-Palestine conflict. India's position has always been, in a way, to put in Mahatma Gandhi's words of 1938, "Palestine belongs to the Arabs as England belongs to the English and France to the French." Gandhi famously observed that Jews suffered at the hands of Christians, but it cannot be compensated by taking away the land of Palestinians to undo the wrongs of history. Jews were the victims of anti-semitism, which prevailed in Europe. Among many roots of anti-semitism was the feeling that it was Jews who were responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Later other trade rivalries were added to this resulting in Adolf Hitler pursuing the worst forms of anti-semitism, by massacring lakhs of Jews. The displaced Jews had to suffer a lot of discrimination, which resulted in the Zionist movement taking root. Theodore Herzl's pamphlet, The Jewish State, and a conference of some Jews in 1897 in Switzerland's Basle further laid the foundations for the Zionist movement. Quoting from the Old Testament in the Bible, Zionists declared that Palestine belonged to Jews and came up with the slogan, 'A land without a people for a people without a land'. The slogan completely ignored the fact that Palestinians had inhabited the land for over millennia. And, in fact, Palestinians were not only Muslims (86%), but they were also Christian (10%) and Jewish (4%). In the aftermath of that conference, a 'Jewish National Fund' was instituted, and Jews from around the world began to relocate to Palestine and bought lands even before Israel was established in 1948. Even as this trend began to take shape, a large number of Jews opposed Zionism, which appealed to Jews to move to Palestine and urged specifically not to rent or resell their lands to Arabs. The intentions of Zionists were very clear right from the start that they wanted to increase their numbers in the region. As their numbers increased, Palestine came under the British mandate and the local Arabs began to see what was happening to their land. At this point, the British implemented its Balfour Declaration of 1917, which supported "the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine". The seeds for the present Israel-Palestine conflict were, thus, sowed by the British colonialists. Jewish writer Arthur Koestler described the Balfour Declaration in the most succinct way, "It was the most improbable document of all the times." American-Israeli historian Martin Kramer, on the other hand, called the Declaration as something which "constituted the first step towards the objective of political Zionism…narrow, conditional, hedged…" The Arab resistance to Jewish migration and Britain's plan to establish a Jewish national home in Palestine began in 1936. It was, however, crushed by the British. The persecution of Jews by Hitler intensified the immigration of Jews into the area after the Second World War. Interestingly, European countries and America did not encourage Jews to come to their lands. In due course, the historic Palestine was divided into Israel and Palestine, with Jerusalem and Bethlehem brought under international control. The division of land was very much against the interests of Arabs, as 30% of Jews who occupied 7% of the land were given 55% of the land. Palestinians declared this as Al Naqba (Catastrophe) and were forced to occupy 45% of the land. Israel, however, continues to enjoy the support of the Western powers. Through various wars over the last seven decades, it has extended its territory to the extent that today it occupies over 80% of the original Palestine land mass. The Palestinians have since been dispossessed of their land and are turned into refugees. Today 1.5 million of them have to live in camps with poor facilities. Soon after the establishment of Israel in 1948, around 14 lakh Palestinians were displaced from which emerged a resistance group called the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Leila Khalid was one of its major icons. The other major figure of this resistance was Yasser Arafat, who took the middle path and brought the issue to the global forefront. The Oslo Accord was one such aborted attempt. The solution put forth by the global community – a two-state solution, with Israel and Palestine as independent nations – is not acceptable to Israel, for it does not recognise Palestine. Golda Meir, a former prime minister of Israel, once stated that "there is no such thing as Palestinians". This, in fact, is the underlying policy of Israel. The expansion of Israel into Palestinian territories has been an ongoing thing since 1948 and many resolutions of the United Nations have not been followed by Israel, as America stands in support of the Zionist policies of Israel. Israel, for its part, also acts as a collaborator in the American designs to control oil resources in the region. The UN, in its Resolution 3379 in 1975, stated that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination. However, later another resolution rolled back the view. Palestinians are probably the worst ever sufferers of discrimination and are being exiled from their own land. This is, perhaps, the most cruel outcome of British colonialism and the United States' imperial designs. With the UN's influence waning over the last few decades, the question that arises is who will do justice to the Palestinians. Now, with Hamas's latest attack, the gross injustice against Palestinians by Israel has intensified, as the West continues to support Israel. However, peace will remain elusive in the region without addressing the root of the problem, which is the Zionist expansionism and suppression of the Palestinians. For lasting solution and peace in West Asia, underlying issues of conflict need to be addressed. One silver lining following the latest conflict is that a number of Jews around the world have been protesting against the high-handedness of Israel.