Quote of the Day December 7, 2021

 

“To observe without evaluating is the highest form of intelligence.”
J. Krishnamurti

“बिना मूल्यांकन किए अवलोकन कर पाना समझदारी का उच्चतम रूप है।”
जे कृष्णमूर्ति

Mahaparinirvana Divas: December 6

 The death anniversary of Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar, which falls on December 6, is dubbed as Mahaparinirvana Divas. On this day each year, millions of people throng to Dr Ambedkar’s Samadhi in Mumbai, which is called Chaitya bhoomi to pay respect to the father of Indian Constitution. This year, due to the on-going pandemic, the Maharashtra government has urged people to refrain from visiting this site and observe the day staying home.

What is Mahaparinirvan?

Mahaparinirvan is one of the major goals of Buddhism. It means ‘’Nirvana after death”. Parinirvan is written as Parinibbana in Pali. Pali language is native to Indian continent. The Buddhist text “Mahaparinibbana Sutta” considers the death of Lord Buddha at the age of 80 as the original Mahaparinirvan.

Why is Death anniversary of Dr Ambedkar celebrated on Mahaparinirvana Divas?

Dr Ambedkar died in a few days after completing his work “The Buddha and his Dhamma”. Also, he converted to Buddhism after studying the religion for years together. He converted to Buddhism on October 14, 1956 in Nagpur along with five lakh supporters. These supporters considered Dr Ambedkar as their Buddhist leader. Also, he was considered as a Buddhist guru for his contributions to the eradication of untouchability. Thus, Ambedkar’s death anniversary is marked as Mahaparinirvan Divas.

About Dr B R Ambedkar

Ambedkar is called the father of constitution of India. He was the first minister of law and Justice of independent India and is considered as the chief architect of the Constitution of India. He was an Indian economist, jurist, social reformer and politician. He inspired several dalit Buddhist movements and fought against social discrimination towards untouchables. He on doctor it’s in Economics from University of London and Columbia University.

In 1956, he converted to Buddhism and initiated mass conversions of the lips. He was awarded with the India’s highest civilian award, Bharat Ratna in 1990.

Aung San Suu Kyi

 Aung San Suu Kyi is a Burmese politician. She is a Nobel Peace Prize laureate. On December 6, 2021, the Myanmar special court sentenced her to 4 years of prison for violating corona virus restrictions. This has drawn worldwide criticisms.

Who is Aung San Suu Kyi?

• Aung San Suu Kyi served as the State Counsellor of Myanmar between 2016 and 2021. The post is equivalent to that of the Prime Ministerial post. She is the youngest daughter of Aung San. Aung San is the Father of Myanmar.
• She was detained before elections in 1989 and house arrested for 15 years. This made her one of the world’s most prominent political prisoner.
• She was called the “Children of Gandhi”.

8888 Uprising

Aung San Suu Kyi became famous through 8888 uprising.  The 8888 uprising is also called People Power Uprising. It includes a series of protests throughout Myanmar. It was caused by withdrawal of currency notes without compensation, police brutality, economic mismanagement, totalitarian one – party rule of Ne Win, corruption. It led to the resignation of Ne Win.

Why was Aung San Suu Kyi sentenced to jail recently?

She was sentenced to be prisoned for two charges. They are inciting the public against the military of Myanmar and also for breaching COVID1-19 protocols. Currently, she is facing 11 charges that can bring a maximum imprisonment of 102 years. The other major controversial cases against her are as follows:

• Alleged use of walkie – talkies by her security guards
• Corruption in granting permits to buy a helicopter
• Violating the Official Secrets Act

What is the issue?

Aung San Suu Kyi is the leader of National League for Democracy. The military of Myanmar holds 25% of total seats in the parliament. In 2021, the a newly elected lawmakers were to hold the first session of the parliament. The military imposed a state of emergency just before the session citing voting fraud in the elections. Through emergency, the military grabbed the power in coup. This was the third time the military grabbed  power in Myanmar since its independence from British rule in 1948. Following the coup, Aung San Suu Kyi was detained.  Such scenarios where military grabs power is called coup de tat.

Current Affairs- December 7, 2021

 

India

• PM Modi and Russian President Vladimir Putin hold 21st India Russia Annual Summit in New Delhi
• The 21st India Russia Annual Summit between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Russian President Vladimir Putin was held at Hyderabad House in New Delhi on December 6, 2021.
• First-ever India-Russia ‘2+2’ dialogue held in New Delhi; Participants: Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh and Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu
• India signs agreement for procurement of 6 lakh AK-203 rifles from Russia for Rs. 5000 crores
• Meeting of India-Russia Inter-Governmental Commission on Military-Technical Cooperation (IRIGC-MTC) held in New Delhi
• Rukmini Banerji, CEO of Pratham Education Foundation, awarded 2021 Yidan Prize for Education Development which is based in Hong Kong SAR
• Social Justice and Empowerment Minister Dr Virendra Kumar launches Scheme for Residential Education for Students in High Schools in Targeted Areas (SRESHTA) for socio-economic upliftment and overall development of Scheduled Castes students
• India and Bangladesh jointly celebrate Maitri Diwas on December 6 to commemorate 50 years of the Bangladesh Liberation War

Economy & corporate

• Number of ATMs in country at over 213,000, says Finance Ministry
• National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (Amendment) Bill, 2021 passed in Lok Sabha
• Sanjiv Mehta, CMD of Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL), appointed as Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI)

World

• dictionary.com picks ‘Allyship’ as Word of the Year 2021
• World Petroleum Congress being organised in Houston (US) from Dec 5 to 9
• Former US Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole dies at 98

Sports

• India (325 & 276/7d) defeat New Zealand (62 & 167) in 2nd test at Mumbai, win 2-test series 1-0
• Mercedes driver Lewis Hamilton wins Formula One Saudi Arabian Grand Prix in Jeddah

Faith, belief and worship

 Every religion is a system of faith, belief and worship in a higher power or god who is deemed to be the creator of the universe. Scriptures and commandments illuminate the teachings of the gods.

Rituals are designed by religious leaders, to put “communication systems” in place between god and the believer and to cement their position as the “enablers” between the “power” and the powerless. Religion should have been a haven for all human beings, a private relationship between an individual and the god to whom he prays, for guidance through the turmoil of everyday life.

But religion and rituals have unfortunately become one of the most contentious and divisive issues of modern times.

Yuval Noah Harari sees religion as a source of maintaining the existence of the fragile and imagined structures and ideas created by man himself to enforce organisation and cooperation throughout a society, by providing an explanation that our laws, organisations and ranking are not made by human beings alone but by a supreme authority outside us.

Differences in the precepts and practices of different religions are being exploited by politicians or religious leaders for short-term personal gain. Man turns to god in times of good fortune and misfortune. When knowledgeable persons misguide or misinform the layman on such occasions, religion which is meant to ensure social order causes tension and strife among the believers of different faiths and atheism and scepticism among youngsters. How do we restore the sanctity of any faith? What is the dharma of religion?

Moral law

The Hindu concept of dharma is a moral law governing individual conduct, designed to maintain a stable society. It is the traditional dharma of the parents to sacrifice and provide for their children, the son to look after his ageing parents, of the brother to safeguard his sisters and husband to provide for his family. A change in gender dynamics has altered this concept of dharma, but the essential tenet of “doing what you are supposed to do” continues.

What is the difference between religion and the Hindu concept of dharma? Dharma, which Atharva Veda describes as the oldest customary order, carries with it a comparatively freer, flowing concept which relates to what the individual ought to do in this birth. Dharma does not relate to a divine revelation or faith. Dharma and religion are not the same, though the word dharma is also used to refer to the religious beliefs of a person. Just as an athlete practises his routine religiously, so should any human being do his duty or dharma with religious fervour.

Religious reforms have come about due to the realisation that religious sanctity accorded to any kind of discrimination among believers destroys the very fundamentals of godliness. Vegans or vegetarians follow their preferences like a religion. Atheists are passionate about their faith in the non-existence of a superpower.

Divinity within

Swami Vivekananda believed that though religions are divergent in various aspects, they are not contradictory, and are rather supplementary to each other. He defines religion as the realisation of divinity within us and this realisation is the one universal religion. He said, “To devote your life to the good of all and to the happiness of all is religion.”

Arun Shourie in his book Does He know a Mother’s Heart talks of how organised religion often tends to frighten the believer into submission to a “benevolent” god, through a system of praise and penalties. Religion should, in fact, empower people with a sense of confidence that they are capable of fighting their battles independently.

The obstacles in life cannot be done away with. Religion should help us to develop the capability to counter them.

Himani Datar

Source: The Hindu, 5/12/21

Naga talks: What has caused the stalemate so far, and what impact can killings have?

 The killing of over a dozen civilians in a botched Indian Army operation in Mon district of Nagaland on Saturday is likely to have an impact on an already tottering Naga peace process. The key Naga group negotiating with the Centre, NSCN(I-M), has declared it a “black day” for all Nagas and termed the incident “unprecedented in recent history”, while the Naga National Political Group (NNPG) has blamed the continued implementation of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), 1958 for such incidents.

What is the status of the Naga talks?

While a significant number of Naga groups say the talks have concluded and only finer details are being worked out, the NSCN(I-M) has said an accord cannot happen until the Centre accepts Naga people’s demand for a separate constitution and flag. The Centre has said it is in no position to grant these. The NSCN(I-M) has rejected all alternatives— such as cultural flag instead of a national flag and dealing with issues of a constitution after signing the agreement —suggested by the Centre’s points-person, former Intelligence Bureau Special Director Akshay Mishra.

A month ago, the NSCN(I-M) said in a statement: “Ironically, the Government of India is still pretentiously acting stubborn as the crucial rounds of talks that focused on the Naga flag and the Constitution is driven to hang in balance. The stalemate created is unfortunate.”Now the Centre, which had in 2015 announced that the talks had concluded with the signing of a Framework Agreement (FA), sources say, is uncertain when a final deal can be achieved.

How will the killings impact the talks?

Given the public anger against the killings, sources said it has the potential to revive the narrative of India versus the Naga people. “People in these parts quote operations of the 1950s and ’60s to articulate perceived atrocities by the Indian state. So, imagine what a fresh incident can do,” a senior Nagaland official said.

Sources said the killings could be exploited by certain insurgent groups to recruit and even strengthen the hands of the NSCN(I-M), which will likely push for its demands with greater vigour given that the government is on the back foot. Even groups seen being in favour of signing the deal quickly will have to reflect the public anger to remain relevant, sources said.

The NNPG, which comprises seven insurgent groups that have so far supported the peace talks process, rescinding many of its earlier demands such as separate flag, said in a statement that the actions of the military have “belittled the commitments made by the Indian Prime Minister and Home Minister”. It said, “The draconian laws in Nagaland and military atrocities over many decades have made Naga people very aware that they are not and will never be Indians.”

Why is there a stalemate despite the FA?

Sources say the FA itself is turning out to be the biggest roadblock before a final deal. Government officials say the wordings are so vague that both sides have interpreted them according to their own convenience.

The NSCN(I-M) has argued that the FA is clear that India and Nagaland would share “sovereign power” and coexist as “two entities”. This, it has argued, is affirmation that India accepts the desire of Naga people for sovereignty and staying within India as a separate entity. It has said this simply means India had agreed to a separate flag and constitution for Nagaland. The Centre has said there is no question of granting sovereignty to a state within India and so both the flag and the constitution are out of the question.

What does the FA say?

About the dialogues held since the 1997 ceasefire agreement between the Centre and the NSCN(I-M), it says, “The GoI-NSCN dialogue led to a better mutual understanding. While the GoI, in expression of the understanding recognised the unique history and position of the Nagas, the NSCN understood and appreciated the intricacies of the Indian system…

“Both sides… are cognizant of the universal principle that in a democracy sovereignty lies with the people. Accordingly, the government of India and the NSCN, respecting people’s wishes for sharing sovereign power as defined in the competencies, reached an agreement on the 3rd August, 2015 as an honourable solution. …It will provide for an enduring inclusive new relationship of peaceful co-existence of the two entities.”

What is the problem with the FA?

Sources said the FA did not clearly spell out how much political space the Centre was willing to cede or not cede for Naga self-determination. They said phrases such as “unique history and position”, “sovereignty lies with the people”, “sharing sovereign power”, and “peaceful coexistence of the two entities” were open to interpretation by both sides.

The NSCN(I-M) has argued that references to sharing sovereignty and coexistence as two entities simply mean that Nagaland would remain a sovereign within India with its own constitution and flag. While the Centre has never articulated its interpretation, former Naga talks interlocutor said last year that NSCN(I-M)’s interpretation was “preposterous lies” and that the Centre has “never ever talked, much less negotiated” on territorial integrity and sovereignty of the country with anyone.

NSCN(I-M) last year accused Ravi of “craftily” tweaking the FA by removing the word “new” from “enduring inclusive new relationship”. It made the FA public.

“The FA is so poorly drafted that it leaves the Centre with very little space to spell out what it can’t give. It reads like an agreement between two hostile nations where they keep the wordings so vague that no promise made or understanding reached appears final. Had there been no FA, probably, we would have had a deal by now,” a senior government official said.

Sources said the signing of the FA also established NSCN(I-M) as the main group negotiating with the government in letter, leaving other Naga groups — which Ravi tried to engage with later — lower in the hierarchy.

Why was such an FA drafted?

Government sources say the wording, however poor, was informed by the politics of 2015. “Flag and constitution were not such touchy issues as a state with precisely these rights (Jammu & Kashmir) existed then. It may be argued though that those drafting it should have pondered over the ruling party’s ideological position on Kashmir even then and advised the political top brass accordingly. Now, after the decisions of August 5, 2019 on Jammu and Kashmir, these issues have become non-negotiable,” another government official said.

Sources said, in fact, oral assurances of Naga flag and “unique space” in the Indian Constitution had been made to the NSCN(I-M) during negotiations before August 5, 2019.

What is the road ahead?

The Centre would have to assuage public anger arising out of the Saturday’s killings through an impartial and quick probe, followed by action on those responsible.

Home Minister Amit Shah on Monday announced in Parliament that a Special Investigation Team has been instituted by the state government.

Only after the government can convince people that it means well, despite the killings, can the Centre can resume discussions, sources said. “The pitch has been queered. Now the only solution is for the government to clearly declare what it cannot give and then ask NSCN(I-M) to negotiate on other issues,” a senior official from Nagaland said.

Written by Deeptiman Tiwary

Source: Indian Express, 7/12/21

How farmers’ movement embodies a politics of hope

 

Indrajit Roy writes: The farmers’ protests remind us that hope is not delusional. It is attentive to the difficulties of the present moment, but appreciates the possibility that something unexpected could arise

The triumph of the farmers’ movements against the unpopular farm laws holds important lessons for those hoping to politically defeat the BJP. After all, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s climbdown on the farm laws represents the most significant political retreat by his government in its two terms, despite its crushing dominance in Parliament. The success of the farmers’ movement is testimony to the audacity of hope.

Hope is, first and foremost, about not giving up. When the farmers’ unions first called for a Bharat bandh back in September 2020, few had expected the government to listen, much less repeal the farm laws at any point soon. But the farmers did not give up. Through the chilly north Indian winter, they persisted in their protests. Despite unfavourable media coverage and hostile state governments in Haryana and Uttar Pradesh, they continued their agitation. Harbouring hope is no easy task. It involves struggle. Living in hope means taking the next step despite being confronted by oppression.

The farmers’ protests remind us that hope is not delusional. It is attentive to the difficulties of the present moment, but appreciates the possibility that something unexpected could arise from the wreckage of the present. When sections of the protesting farmers turned violent in Delhi on the eve of Republic Day earlier this year, the movement recognised the danger in which it was. They recognised that the government, supported by a pliant media, would use this opportunity to paint them all as anti-national, seditious and traitorous. Rakesh Tikait, the farmers’ leader, broke down on national television in anticipation of their forceful eviction from the protest sites by the central government. His tears taught us yet another lesson about hope: It accepts the reality of grief, loss and uncertainty.

As we now know, Tikait’s tears turned the tide. The farmers did not give up their agitation, but expanded their footprint to small towns and villages across the country. For example, September saw a massive mahapanchayat in Muzaffarnagar, Tikait’s home ground, in which almost 5,00,000 people participated.

The uncertainty that farmers faced did not prevent them from thinking through and taking action. As the feminist bell hooks reminds us, living in hope is linked with a basic trust in life that motivates the “next step”. It is about believing that our families, cultures and societies are important, and for whom it is worth living and dying. Far from being a hindrance to action, as the philosopher Hannah Arendt feared, hope is about confronting oppression and believing that there’s a way out. The farmers dispersed their protests across towns and villages, often at great peril to their own lives, as the ghastly incidents in Lakhimpur Kheri showed.

Living in hope demands that we carefully and sensitively craft novel alliances that could open new possibilities. Building and sustaining social coalitions was another lesson the farmers’ movement taught us. Without a doubt, the protests originated in the anxieties of the big Hindu and Sikh farmers of the Jat community, dominant castes in their respective villages. These narrow social origins have since diffused to include support from such diverse social groups as the Dalit Army, the Zameen Prapti Sangharsh Samiti and the Khet Mazdoor Unions. Furthermore, the Hindu Jat farmers appear to be seeking reconciliation with their Muslim neighbours in western Uttar Pradesh, almost a decade after communal violence ripped the social fabric of that region.

The alliances demanded by the political practice of hope broadens people’s horizons. Writing in the shadows of Nazism, the historian Ernst Bloch makes exactly this point in his epic three-volume study The Principle of Hope. “The emotion of hope goes out of itself,” he writes, “makes people broad instead of confining them”. Like the protests against the CAA-NRC, the farmers’ movement teaches us the crucial importance of building solidarities across social divides to the politics of hope.

Our world is plagued by crisis, uncertainty and prospects of a catastrophe. Under such circumstances, it is tempting to fixate on collapse rather than focus on repair. A politics of hope is indispensable to confronting the social, economic and political troubles of our time. The farmers’ movement reminds us how we might practice it in trying times.

Source: Indian Express, 7/12/21