Followers

Tuesday, April 13, 2021

Ambedkar’s vision of nationalism had no room for parochialism

 Whenever I think of Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar’s thoughts and his vision, his work for social democracy comes to mind. In his speech in the last meeting of the Constituent Assembly, for instance, he had categorically said that the caste system and democracy cannot coexist. That is why the Indian Constitution barred discrimination on the basis of caste and language.

Ambedkar drafted the Constitution with his able colleagues and gave a voice to the traditions, faith and beliefs of the country. But, in his vision, all the citizens of the country were Indians first; their other identities came later.

If we delve into Ambedkar’s statements in the Constituent Assembly, we find a unique confluence of politics, law, history and philosophy. In November 1948, while proposing to consider the draft of the Constitution, he explained the decision to call India a “Union of States” and not a “Federation of States”. I believe that Ambedkar was concerned with the challenge of social separation in India, so he said, “If we want to build a democracy, we have to recognise the obstacles in our path because the grand palace of the Constitution stands on the foundation of people’s allegiance in democracy.”

These views reflect his sense of nationalism, in which there is no distinction among individuals, irrespective of their caste and religion. There is harmony among all of us. That is why our nation is a classic example of unity in diversity. That is why the Preamble of the Constitution lays stress on equality and fraternity among citizens. Any nation is formed by a coming together of its traditions, cultures, religions and languages. Therefore, nationalism has no place for parochialism.

Ambedkar also explained this vision about India in a wider perspective. Giving importance to the land, its society and the best traditions for nation-building, he stressed that the nation is not a physical entity. It is the result of continuous efforts, sacrifice and patriotism.

He described nationality as “consciousness of kind, awareness of the existence of that tie of kinship”, as this is how people come close to each other and develop a sense of fraternity. In this, the idea of narrowness is the biggest obstacle. He clearly said that he wanted all the people of India to consider themselves as Indian and only Indian.

Ambedkar took three words from the French Revolution — liberty, equality and fraternity. These words included in the core of the Constitution also deeply influenced his political and social philosophy. That is why the fundamental rights provided by the Constitution enshrine the right to equality through Articles 14 to 18, the right to freedom through Articles 19 to 22 and the right against exploitation (Articles 23 anAmbedkar was also a pioneer in his thinking on women’s education and jobs. He believed that the progress of a community ought to be measured “by the degree of progress which women had achieved”. He was probably the first scholar who tried to understand the position of women in the caste structure. That led him to advocate for rights and empowerment of women.

Ambedkar’s dream for India was that equality should be established at all levels in the society. That is why he constantly emphasised on making society classless. It is intellectual poverty to associate him only with a particular class or caste. He belonged to all.

It also needs to be understood that Article 370 was also added to the Constitution against his will, which was abrogated after 72 years of Independence with the strong will and resolve of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah.

If we go into the totality of Ambedkar’s thoughts, we will find the seeds of equality, unity and integrity. His philosophy of “bahujana hitaya bahujana sukhaya” and its belief in equality and justice is relevant today and will remain so in the future.d 24).

Written by Kalraj Mishra 

Source: Indian Express, 13/04/21


Monday, April 12, 2021

Quote of the Day April 12, 2021

 

“Never make friendship with people who are above or below you in status. Such friendships will never give you any happiness.”
Chanakya
“अपने से कम या अधिक हैसियत के लोगों से मित्रता न करें। ऐसी मित्रता आपको कभी कोई प्रसन्नता नहीं देगी।”
चाणक्य

Economic & Political Weekly: Table of Contents

 

Vol. 56, Issue No. 15, 10 Apr, 2021

Who was Samuel Hahnemann?

 Every year, the World Homeopathy day is celebrated on April 10. The day is celebrated to commemorate the birth anniversary of the founder of Homeopathy Dr Samuel Hahnemann. In India, the Homeopathy Day was celebrated under the following theme:

Theme: Homeopathy: Roadmap for Integrative Medicine

Who was Samuel Hahnemann?

Dr Samuel Hahnemann was born on April 10, 1755. He was a German physician and was best known for creating pseudoscientific system of alternative medicine. The pseudoscientific system is called Homeopathy. Pseudoscience is a set of practices that are scientific and factual but are incompatible with scientific methods.

Dr Hahnemann was dissatisfied of the fact that the medicines in his time at times created more harm than good. Thus, he gave up practicing medicine in 1784. Then on, he started investigating causes of alleged errors in the medicines.

How did Samuel invent Homeopathy?

He encountered the fact that Cinchona, the bark of Peruvian tree was effective in treating malaria. According to him, this was possible because of the astringency of the Peruvian tree. Astringency is the property that causes skin cell or other body cells to contract.

To research about the effect of Cinchona on human body he self-applied it. The drug then induced malaria like symptoms in him. With this he concluded that it would do so in any healthy individual.Based on the above invention, he framed the concept that “Like Cures Like”, that is, “that which can produce symptoms in healthy individuals can treat a sick patient who is suffering from same kind of symptoms”. This principle was named by him as “Homeopathy”. This is the base of homeopathic treatment.

The World Homeopathy Day is different from World Health Day.

World Health Day

The World Health Day is celebrated on April 7. This year, the World Health Day was celebrated on the following theme:

Theme” Building a fairer, healthier world

Current Affairs:April 11, 2021

 

India

  • West Bengal Assembly elections: 4 killed in CISF firing at a polling booth in Cooch Behar district
  • Centre to observe ‘Tika Utsav’ on April 11-14 across the country; aim to vaccinate maximum eligible people
  • World Homeopathy Day celebrated on April 10; the birth anniversary of Dr. Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843)
  • World Homeopathy Day theme for India: “Homeopathy- Roadmap for Integrative Medicine”
  • S. Swaminathan felicitated for work towards TB eradication by Chennai-based NGO REACH
  • CSIR removes NEERI (National Environment Engineering and Research Institute), Nagpur head Rakesh Kumar as Director over corruption allegations

Economy & corporate

  • NITI Aayog launches Online Dispute Resolution Handbook

World

  • BASIC nations oppose European Union’s idea of ‘carbon border tax’ as part of its green push; call it trade barrier
  • ICCR (Indian Council for Cultural Relations) launches ‘Little Guru’ app to promote Sanskrit learning, in the Indian embassy at Beijing
  • La Soufrière volcano erupts on Caribbean island of St. Vincent
  • Indonesia: 6.0 magnitude earthquake on Java Island kills seven
  • Sri Lanka: Jaffna Mayor Viswalingam Manivannan arrested for ‘promoting LTTE ideology’; released on bail
  • Iran unveils advanced nuclear centrifuges at Natanz uranium enrichment plant
  • UAE names first female astronaut Noura al-Matroushi for its space programme
  • China imposes $2.8 bn penalty on Jack Ma’s Alibaba Group in monopoly probe

Sports

  • Sports Minister Kiren Rijiju inaugurates Khelo India State Centre of Excellence for Rowing at Water Sports Academy in Srinagar
  • Women wrestlers Anshu Malik (57 kg), Sonam Malik (62 kg) qualify for Tokyo Olympics

The arrival of a new force in Tripura

 The Congress’s political fortunes sank further when party chief and a member of the former royal family of the state, Pradyot Manika Deb Burman, quit and set up his own party, The Indigenous Progressive Regional Alliance.

In India’s mainstream political imagination, Tripura is often on the periphery. This may stem from the tyranny of distance from the national Capital, and its location in the often-neglected Northeast, but the state’s diverse social landscape, strategic location, and history makes it politically crucial. For long, the state’s political history was marked by Left domination — and the presence of Manik Sarkar as a steady hand at the helm of governance. The Congress was the other pole in the state, but in 2018, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) sprung a surprise by sweeping the state polls in a remarkable victory. The Congress’s political fortunes sank further when party chief and a member of the former royal family of the state, Pradyot Manikya Deb Burman, quit and set up his own party, The Indigenous Progressive Regional Alliance. This force has now marked its political arrival by winning 18 of the 28 seats in autonomous district councils, ahead of all the other forces in the state.

Mr Burman’s victory is significant for two reasons. One, representing the indigenous tribal community, his party poses a challenge to what has been a polity dominated largely by the state’s majority Bengali-speakers, and has successfully overwhelmed other smaller tribal formations — one of which is in an alliance with the BJP. Two, Mr Burman was among the younger leaders who quit the Congress because of the incoherence at the top of the party, uncertainty over leadership, and its ideologically vacillating positions. But he chose to set up his own force, rather than join an existing outfit. Tripura’s unique social mosaic, and his own background as a royal, allowed him to do so. But it is a lesson to the Congress — if you let talent go, the talent will find a platform but the party will shrink further.

Source: HIndustan Times, 11/04/21

Maoist challenge: Why large armies lose small wars

 For a government with an image of “strong”responses to provocation, the temptation to launch into a major retaliative operation, possibly with armed forces participation, would be strong. But that would be a mistake. Debates on the latest Maoist attacks, critiquing or defending security forces and their tactics, miss the strategic picture. As Henry Kissinger said – the conventional army loses, if it does not win. The guerrilla wins, if he does not lose.

To that extent, Maoists have been winning against security forces for over a decade now. A tactical playbook follows the trite cycle of postmortem, rolling of heads, threats of a fitting response, usually followed by a massive reprisal. Ironically, the latter is exactly what guerrillas count on. A strategic view helps join the dots.

Mao Tse Tung, the ideological fountainhead of the movement, defined revolution as an act of violence by which one class (aka peasants) overthrows another class (landlords). In the Chinese context, the revolution was to overthrow the incumbent ruler. Ironically, Mao’s strategy was influenced more by Clausewitz than Sun Tzu because of his Soviet leaning, training and patronage. In his book, On protracted War, (which borrows heavily from Clausewitz’s On War), Mao identified three phases of the revolution — strategic defence, strategic stalemate and strategic offence.The first phase is when the guerrillas are weak and the State is overwhelmingly strong. According to Mao, retreat, defeat and weakness is part of this period. Guerrillas seek to avoid contact and use this phase to build capability, garner local support, national and international alliances. When his weak and fledgling Red Army, the forerunner of the People’s Liberation Army, was encircled by General Chiang Kai-shek’s troops in their stronghold at Jiangxi, Mao retreated 9,000km, in what came to be known as the Long March, over a year, all the way to barren and inhospitable Yan’an to rebuild the Red Army’s fighting capabilities. Much like the Maoist strongholds.

In the stalemate phase, guerrillas consolidate a physical enclave where their writ runs and State forces are unable to interfere. This gives them operating room to increase numbers and lethality of their cadres. The enclave, or as in the case of the Maoists, a “corridor”, also allows them free movement and influx of external supplies from countries who are either sympathetic to their ideology or enemies of the State.

As the name implies, the stalemate phase consists of a series of undecisive skirmishes which largely benefits guerrillas. For one, home ground gives guerrillas the advantage of terrain, local support, choice of timing and location of engagement. Second, since security forces are usually overwhelmed, it gives guerrillas an additional cache of sophisticated arms, ammunition, communication equipment and other resources. And in some cases, also hostages, who can be a major bargaining chip.

Third, it boosts the morale of guerrilla cadres, especially when they have defeated crack and much vaunted government troops. The added benefit is creating legends and narratives around key guerrilla leaders and specific units – in this case, Madvi Hidma and the 1st Battalion of People’s Liberation Guerrilla Army. And most importantly, a humiliating rout compels the state to react with a heavy hand and overwhelming force — most of which is borne by the constituent population, thus cementing their support for the guerrillas. It is in this phase that the Maoist movement is now at, and probably will remain for some time to come.

For a government with an image of “strong”responses to provocation, the temptation to launch into a major retaliative operation, possibly with armed forces participation, would be strong. But that would be a mistake.

All terror operations are conducted for five audiences. The first is the incumbent government. The objective is to attack State instruments for psychological and political messaging, creating operating room and provoke disproportionate use of force especially on their second audience – the constituent population, thus alienating larger numbers from the State.

The third audience is the non-constituent population, which is rest of the country, who are now aware of the seriousness of this problem and want to get involved. People with little understanding of warfare start baying for blood, compelling the government down a slippery slope of militarising the situation. Which in a perverse way, justifies the guerrilla’s cause of fighting the State.

The fourth audience are internal cadres and potential recruits who swell because of the success of every operation and reprisals by State forces. The last audience are foreign countries who, at one extreme, will assist with moral and material support and, at the other, by internationalising the cause, reduce maneuvering room for the State.

It would be naive to assume that an operation planned with such tactical finesse by Maoists would be devoid of strategic planning for its aftermath. Our armed forces and central armed police forces are stretched on an unprecedented level. We are facing a two-and-a-half-front war right now. While tensions may have abated on the eastern and western fronts, the commitment of troops continues. Troops are also committed in Kashmir, Northeast, in security duties for elections and of course battling the pandemic. Similarly, the mindshare of national strategic leadership is dominated by several pressing political and economic issues at the moment. Besides, brute force alone seldom exterminates guerrilla movements as nations with far larger armies have found to their great expense.

Our security forces suffered heavy casualties because their tactical leaders walked into a trap. The strategic leaders shouldn’t walk into another one. And that calls for strategic restraint and maneuvering, rather than hasty resolute action.


Raghu Raman is the founding CEO of NATGRID

Source: Hindustan Times, 9/04/21