कोरोना सिर्फ बीमारी नहीं

कोरोना सिर्फ बीमारी नहीं,

सिर्फ महामारी नहीं,

यह एक संकेत है,

यह एक संदेश है,

प्रकृति का,

इस सृष्टि का,

पूरी मानवता के लिए।

मत हो अंधे,

मत हो अधीर,

लालच तृष्णा छोड़ दो,

विकास  का कुचक्र,

मोड़ दो,

विकास नहीं सिर्फ विनाश किया है,

प्रकृति का,

पर्यावरण का,

जल जमीन जंगल का,

पर्वत पशु पक्षी का,

केवल सत्यानाश किया है,

खुद अपना ही सर्वनाश किया है।

सुविधाओं में कैद,

अभिलाषाओं में फंसे,

तूने खुद अपने हाथों,

विनाश की पटकथा लिखी है,

कोई और नहीं जिम्मेदार,

सिर्फ तुम हो,

हे मानव!

अपने विनाश, अपने सर्वनाश का।

प्रकृति ने तुमको क्षमता दी,

अनंत और असीम,

बैक्टीरिया से लड़ने का,

हर वायरस को हराने का,

हर बार तू लड़ा है,

और जीता भी है,

पर इस बार तुम असहाय हो,

लाचार हो, मजबूर हो,

दहशत और डर की साया है,

मृत्यु का भय है,

यह सब तेरी करनी है,

जिसको तुम हो भोग रहे।

स्वच्छंद ऊर्जा, शक्ति,

प्रकृति का वरदान,

भोग विलासी आलसी,

रुग्ण और अय्याशी जीवन शैली,

सुविधा भोगी आराम तलबी से,

तूने खुद ही नष्ट किया,

क्षीण हुआ, कमजोर हुआ,

खुद नैसर्गिक शक्ति का विनष्ट किया।

प्रकृति का आलंबन करो,

स्वाभाविक और नैसर्गिक,

जीवन जियो,

प्रकृति का दोहन बंद करो,

कोई ना अंतर्द्वंद करो।

प्रकृति ही ईश्वर है,

मां है, जनक है,

पोषक है, प्रतिपालक है,

प्रकृति ही रक्षक है,

प्रकृति ही शिक्षक है,

प्रकृति से प्रेम,

प्रकृति से पूजा वंदन करो,

अभिनंदन करो,

आचार व्यवहार प्राकृतिक हो,

स्वाभाविक हो,

सबल स्वस्थ सुंदर रहोगे,

यदि प्रकृति का सम्मान,

और प्राकृतिक व्यवहार करोगे।

12 अप्रैल 2020

Solution of the Communal Deadlock by Dr Ambedkar

                                   

                            

  (Gist)

5 May 1945 (IISCF National Convention)

The growth of the Federation within so short a time will not be fully appreciated unless the tremendous difficulties in the way of our organization have been fully appreciated. There are agents of other political organizations which decoy our people by false blandishments, by false promises and by false propaganda. There is the ignorance of our own people, who do not know the critical nature of the times we are living in and who do not know the value of organization for achieving our political objects. There is a lamentable lack of resources at our command.

Mr. Ganpat Mahadev Jadhav, the President of the Bombay City Scheduled Castes Federation.

First of these considerations is that Law and Order is the medicine of the body politic, and when the First of these considerations is that Law and Order is the medicine of the body politic, and when the body politic goes sick this medicine must be administered. Indeed, so important is this consideration that failure to administer it must be deemed to be a crime against society and civilization.ody politic goes sick this medicine must be administered. Indeed, so important is this consideration that failure to administer it must be deemed to be a crime against society and civilization.

The second consideration is that though it is true that no government has a vested right to govern, it is equally true that there must always be a government to govern—which I mean maintain Law and Order—until it is displaced by a better government.

It is useless for the British to frame a Constitution for India which they will not remain to enforce. The same result will ensue if the Constitution is imposed by one powerful section or a combination of such sections on other sections.

I am, therefore, firmly of opinion that if Indians want Dominion Status, they cannot escape the responsibility of framing their own Constitution. The position is thus inescapable.

I must state that I am wholly opposed to the proposals of a Constituent Assembly. It is absolutely superfluous. I regard it as a most dangerous project, which may involve this country in a Civil War. In the first place, I do not see why a Constituent Assembly is at all necessary.

Having regard to this I cannot see why a Constituent Assembly is necessary to incubate a constitution. So much of the Constitution of India has already been written out in the Government of India Act, 1935, that it seems to be an act of supererogation to appoint a Constituent Assembly to do the thing ever again. All that is necessary is to delete those sections of the Government of India Act, 1935, which are inconsistent with Dominion Status.

The chances of corruption and bribery being used in the Indian Constituent Assembly to buy over members to support decisions desired by interested groups are very real. Their effects, I am sure, cannot be overlooked. If this happens, it will not only make mockery of the Constituent Assembly but I feel quite certain that any attempt made to enforce its decisions will result in a civil war. It is my considered opinion that the proposal of Constituent Assembly is more dangerous than profitable and should not be entertained.

All that is necessary is to convert administrative practice into statutory obligation. This can be done by adding a Schedule to the Government of India Act, which will include the provisions contained in these Resolutions and similar provisions for the different provinces and make the Schedule a part of the Law of the Constitution.

The majority in India is a communal majority and not a political majority.

If I may say so, the representation is a balanced representation. No one community is placed in a position to dominate others by reason of its numbers. The Muslim objection to the Hindu majority and the Hindu and Sikh objections to the Muslim majority are completely eliminated, both in the Central as well as in the Provinces.

My proposals are for an United India. They are made in the hope that the Muslims will accept them in preference to Pakistan as providing better security than Pakistan does. I am not against Pakistan, I believe it is founded on principle of self-determination, which it is now too late to question. I am prepared to give them the benefit of the principle, on condition that the Muslims do not deny the benefit of the principles to the Non-Muslim residents of the Area. But I believe, I am entitled to draw the attention of the Muslims to another and a better plan of security. I claim that my plan is better than the plan of Pakistan.

(i) Under my proposal the danger of a communal majority, which is the basis of Pakistan is removed,

(ii) Under my proposal the weightage at present enjoyed by the Muslims is not disturbed.

(iii) The position of Muslims in the Non-Pakistan Provinces is greatly strengthened by an increase in their representation, which they may not get if Pakistan comes and which will leave them in a more helpless condition than they are in at present.

The majority rule is not accepted as a principle but is tolerated as a rule. I might also state why it is tolerated. It is tolerated for two reasons; (1) because the majority is always a political majority and (2) because the decision of a political majority accepts and absorbs so much of the point of view of the minority that the minority does not care to rebel against the decision.

In India, the majority is not a political majority. In India the majority is born ; it is not made. That is the difference between a communal majority and a political majority. A political majority is not a fixed or a permanent majority. It is a majority which is always made, unmade and remade. A communal majority is a permanent majority fixed in its attitude. One can destroy it, but one cannot transform it. If there is so much objection to a political majority, how very fatal must be the objection to a communal majority ?

My proposals do not ask the Hindus to abandon the principle of majority rule. All I am asking them is to be satisfied with a relative majority. Is it too much for them to concede this ?

It may well be contrasted with what happened in Ireland. Mr. Redmond, the leader of the Irish Nationalists once told Carson, the leader of Ulster; “Consent to United Ireland, Ask for any safeguard and they shall be granted to you”. He is reported to have turned round and said : “Damn your safeguards ; we don’t want to be ruled by you”. The minorities in India have not said that. They are ready to be satisfied with safeguards. I ask the Hindus Is this not worth a mass ? I am sure it is.

The first opportunity came in 1927, when Lord Birkenhead gave a challenge to Indians asking them to produce a constitution for India. That challenge was taken up. A committee was formed to frame a constitution. A constitution was produced and was ‘The Nehru Constitution’. known as It was, however, not accepted by Indians and was buried without remorse.

Indians in 1930, when they assembled at the Round Table Conference. There again, Indians failed to play their part and write out their own A third attempt is the one recently made by the Sapru Committee. The proposals of this committee too have fallen flat.

Federation Vs Freedom (1939) by Dr Ambedkar

                                                                             (Gist)

The words ‘State’ and ‘Society’ are often presented as though there was a contrast between the two. But there is no distinction of a fundamental character between a State and a society. It is  true that the plenary powers of the State operate through the sanction of law while society depends upon religious and social sanctions for the enforcement of its plenary powers. The fact, however, remains that both have plenary powers to coerce. As such, there is no contrast between state and society. Secondly, the persons composing society are persons who are also members of the State. Here again, there is no difference between State and Society.
Every person, who is a member of society and dwells in it, is not necessarily a member of the State. Only those who dwell within the boundary of the State do not necessarily belong to the State. This distinction between those, who belong to the State and those who do not, is very crucial and should not be forgotten because it has important consequences. Those who belong to State are members and have the benefits of membership which consists of the totality rights and duties which they possess over against the State. From the side of duty the relation is best indicated by the word subject, from

the side of rights it is best designated by the word citizen. This difference involves the consequence that those who dwell in the State without belonging to it have no benefit of membership which means that they are foreigners and not citizens.
If the Federal Constitution had provided full responsible Government, there would have been some compensation to British India for the price it has paid to the Princes for their joining the Federation. But British India has not got any responsibility worth the name. What British India has got is a system of responsibility halved in part and mutilated in substance by conditions and restraints. Not only British India has not been able to secure responsibility at the Centre commensurate with the sacrifices it has made for making the Federation easy for the Princes, but it has lost its claim for

Dominion Status in its own right and independently of the Princes. Many people do not know what British India has lost and stands to lose in this business of an All India Federation. The new Constitution is the result of the struggle of the people of British India. It is the agitation and the sufferings of the people of British India which was the compelling force

behind this constitution. What was the right which the people of British India were claiming for themselves ? As I have said, their first claim was good government in British India. Next they claimed self-government, that is responsible government for British India. Lastly, they claimed Dominion Status for British India. Each one of these claims have been accepted by the British Parliament. In 1917 the British Parliament accepted the goal of Responsible Government. In 1929 the English Nation accepted the goal of Dominion Status, Now it must be emphasised that each time the claim was made, it was made in the name of the people of British India. Each time it was accepted in relation to the people of British India. What is going to be the position of British India as a result of the Federation ? The position of British India is that they can never get any responsibility at the Centre unless the Princes come into the Scheme. That means that British India has lost its right to claim Responsible Government for itself in its own name and independently of the Princes. This right was a vested right because it was the result of a claim made and accepted. That right has been lost because British India is made dependent for the realization of its destiny upon the wishes of the States. Of the two parts of this Federation.

British India is the progressive part and the States form the unprogressive part. That the progressive part should be tied up to the chariot of the unprogressive and its path and destiny should be made dependent upon the unprogressive part constitutes the most tragic side of this Federation.
Thakkar Bapa, the left hand man of Mahatma Gandhi. I call him left hand man only because Vallabhbhai Patel is the right hand man—very recently said that I was only the leader of the Mahars. He would not even allow me the leadership of the Untouchables of the Bombay Presidency.

Whether what Thakkar Bapa said was said by him out of malice or out of love of truth does not worry me. For politics is not my first love nor is national leaderhip the goal of my life. On the other hand, when I see what disasters your national leaders have brought upon this country I feel relieved to know that I am not included in that august crowd. Believe me when I say that some of your national leaders were thoroughly unprepared for the job of constitution-making. They went to the Round Table Conference without any comparative study of constitutions and could propound no solutions to problems with which they were presented. Others who were undoubtedly competent to tackle the problem were like little children so charged with the ideal of Federation that they never cared to see whether what they were shaping was a real federation or a fraud in the name of Federation. This tragedy is entirely due to wrong leadership. I do not know if the steps taken can be retraced and whether the lost ground can be regained. But I think it is a right thing that the people of British India should know what they have lost. They have a federation of their own and they have right to demand responsibility for their federation. What is the interest of the Princes in this Federation? The Muslims had an interest which not only coloured their whole vision but made it so limited that they did not care to look at anything else.

The Hindus as represented by the Hindu Mahasabha were concerned with only one thing. How to meet what they called the menace of the Musalmans ? The Hindu Mahasabha felt that the accession of the Princes was an accretion to the Hindu strength. Everything else was to them of no consequence. Its point of view was Federation at any cost.

The next class whose point of view is worthy of consideration is the Indian Commercial Community.

What shall I say about the Congress? What was its point of view? I am sure I am not exaggerating or misrepresenting facts when I say that the Congress point of view at the Round Table Conference was that the Congress was the only party in India and that no body else counted and that the British should settle with the Congress only. This was the burden of Mr. Gandhi’s song at the Round Table Conference, He was so busy in establishing his own claim to recognition by the British as the dictator of India that he forgot altogether that the important question was not, with whom the settlement should be made but what were to be the terms of that settlement. As to the terms of the settlement, Mr. Gandhi was quite unequal to the task. When he went to London he had forgotten that he would have before him not those who go to him to obtain his advice and return with his blessings but persons who would treat him as a lawyer treats a witness in the box. Mr. Gandhi also forgot that he was going to a political conference. He went there as though he was going to a Vaishnava Shrine singing the Narsi Mehta’s Songs. When I think of the whole affair I am wondering if any nation had ever sent a representative to negotiate the terms of a national settlement who was more unfit than Mr. Gandhi. How unfit Mr. Gandhi was to negotiate a settlement becomes evident when one realizes that this Ambassador of India was ready to return to India with only Provincial Autonomy when as a matter of fact he was sent to negotiate on the basis of Independence. No man has brought greater disasters to the, interests of India than did Mr. Gandhi at the Round Table Conference. Less one speaks of him the better.

I have no doubt that this Federation if it comes into being will be a standing menace to the free man and an obstacle in the way of the poor man. What freedom can there be when you are made subject to the autocracy of the Princes? What economic betterment can there be when you get Second Chambers with vested rights entrenched in Ml and when legislation affecting property is subject to sanction by the Government both before introducing and after it has passed ?

We are standing today at the point of time where the old age ends and the new begins. The old age was the age of Ranade, Agarkar, Tilak, Gokhale, Wachha, Sic Pherozeshah Mehta, Surendranath Bannerjee. The new age is the age of Mr. Gandhi and this generation is said to be Gandhi generation. As one who knows something of the old age and also something of the new I see some very definite marks of difference between the two. The type of leadership has undergone a profound change. In the age of Ranade the leaders struggled to modernize India. In the age of Gandhi the leaders are making her a living specimen of antiquity.

I am not opposed to a Federal Form of Government. I confess I have a partiality for a Unitary form of Government. I think India needs it. But I also realize that a Federal Form of Government is inevitable if there is to be Provincial Autonomy, But I am in dead horror the Federal Scheme contained in the Government of India Act.

The real question is the extension and the growth of responsibility. Is that possible ? That is the crux. Let  us also realize that there is no use hugging to Provincial Autonomy and leaving responsibility in the Centre hanging in the air. I am convinced that without real responsibility at the Centre, Provincial Autonomy is an empty shell.

Southborough Commission 27 May 1919-Memorandum by Dr. Ambedkar

(Gist)

The most difficult and the most momentous question of Government (is) how to transmit the force of individual opinion and preference into public action.

No person as such should be denied the opportunity of actively participating in the process of Government.

Representation of opinions and representation of persons.

Persons do not become like-minded by merely living in physical proximity, any more than they cease to be like-minded by being distant from each other.  Participation in a group is the only way of being like-minded with the group.

Like-mindedness is essential for an harmonious life, social or political and, as has just been shown, it depends upon the extent of communication, participation or endosmosis.

The significant fact about the Hindus is that before they are Hindus they are members of some caste. The castes are so exclusive and isolated that the consciousness of being a Hindu would be the chief guide of a Hindu’s activity towards non-Hindu.

Between two Hindus, caste-like-mindedness is more powerful than the like-mindedness due to their both being Hindus.

The real social divisions of India then are :

(1) Touchable Hindus.

(2) Untouchable Hindus.

(3) Mohammedans.

(4) Christians.

(5) Parsees.

(6) Jews.

Proper and adequate representation of interests and opinions.

A Government for the people, but not by the people, is sure to educate some into masters and others into subjects.

It is not enough to be electors only. It is necessary to be law-makers ; otherwise who can be law-makers will be masters of those who can only be electors.

One crux of popular Government is the representation of interests and opinions. The other crux is personal representation. Territorial constituencies fail to create popular Government because they fail to secure personal representation to members of minor groups.

Proportional representation is ill-suited for the purpose in hand.

The new consciousness insists on dividing the touchable group into Brahmins and non-Brahmins each with its own separate interests.

It is in the interest of all that the Brahmin should not play such a preponderant part in politics as he has been doing hitherto. He has exerted a pernicious influence on the social life of the country and it is in the interest of all that his pernicious influence should be kept at a minimum in politics. As he is the most exclusive he is most anti-social.

The word untouchable is an epitome of their ills and sufferings. Not only has untouchability arrested the growth of their personality but also it comes in the way of their material well-being. It has also deprived them of certain civil rights.

The untouchable is not even a citizen. Citizen ship is a bundle of rights such as (1) personal liberty, (2) personal security, (3) rights to hold private property, (4) equality before law, (5) liberty of conscience, (6) freedom of opinion and speech, (7) right of assembly, (8) right of representation in a country’s Government and (9) right to hold office under the State.

An instance at hand may be cited from the school system of the Bombay Municipality. This most cosmopolitan city ruled by a Corporation with a greater freedom than any other Corporation in India has two different sets of schools ... one for the children of touchables and the other for those of the untouchables.,

The Congress has denied communal representation except in the case of Mohammedans and it also denies the extensive use of nomination ; the only way then left, open to the untouchables is to fight in a general electorate. Now this is as it should be if all were equally free to fight.

Congress is largely composed of men who are by design political Radicals and social Tories.

As the Congress is a non-national or anti-national body, its views on communal electorates are worthy of no serious consideration.

To be frank, the untouchables cannot expect much good from the political power to be given over to the high caste Hindus. Though the power may not be used against the untouchables and one cannot be altogether sure of this, it may not be used for their betterment.

Dadabhoy in 1916 in the Imperial Legislative Council. That it was adversely criticized by many who claimed to evince some interest in the untouchables is too well known to need repetition. But what is not well known is that though the resolution was lost the mover was not pardoned ; for the very moving of such a nasty resolution was regarded as a sin. At a subsequent election the mover had to make room for the Honourable Mr. Khaparde, who once wrote in an article : “ Those who work for the elevation of the untouchables are themselves degraded.”

Recently there is brought into the forefront a rival scheme for the representation of the untouchables by the Depressed Class Mission. The scheme is known as co-option. The scheme proposes that the representatives of the untouchables should be nominated by the co-option of the elected members of the Council.

Communal Representation is a device to ward off the evil effects of the divisions. To those who, while agreeing to this particular benefit of communal representation, object to it on the score that it perpetuates the divisions it can be shown that there is another perspective from which it can be said that communal representation instead of perpetuating the social divisions is one of the ways of dissolving them.

begin to have contact and co-operation with one another the resocialization of the fossilized attitude is bound to be the result.

But the existing set attitude representing the diverse castes and groups will be dissolved only if the diverse groups meet together and take part in a common activity.

Statistics will show that the intelligentia and the Brahmin caste are exchangeable terms. The disposition of the intelligentsia is a Brahmin disposition. Its outlook is a Brahmin outlook. Though he has learned to

speak in the name of all, the Brahmin leader is in no sense a leader of the people. He is a leader of his caste at best, for he feels them as he does for no other people. It is not intended to say that there are no Brahmins who feel for the untouchables.

To be just, there are a few more moderate and rational Brahmins who admit the frightful nature of the institution of untouchability in the abstract and perceive the dangers to society with which it is fraught.

The growth of education if it is confined to one class, will not necessarily lead to liberalism. It may lead to the justification and conservation of class interest; and instead of creating the liberators of the down-trodden, it may status quo create champions of the past and the supporters of the

March 1918 in Bombay. Doctor Kurtakoti, the Shankaracharya of Karvir fame, though promised to attend, left for Northern India just a day or two before the conference met, on some urgent business. Mr. Tilak is credited with a short speech at the conference which has for the good luck of Mr. Tilak remained unreported. But this was only lip sympathy shown to hoodwink the untouchables for when the draft of the proclamation removing untouchabilily was presented to Mr. Tilak, it is known on creditable evidence that he refused to honour it with his signature.

A community may claim representation only on the ground of separate interests which require protection. In India, such interests are of three kinds only : either they arise out of religious antipathies which are pretty strong in India, or out of the backward state of a community in educational matters, or out of the socioreligious disabilities to which a community may be subject. Confining ourselves to the Hindu communities there are certain communities who, besides being very backward, are suffering under a great social tyranny.

The untouchable classes must have their own men in the Council Hall to fight for the redress of their grievances. The non-Brahmins as a class are subjected to the social and intellectual domination of the Brahmin priesthood and may therefore rightly advocate separate representation.”

Ranade, Gandhi and Jinnah by Dr. Ambedkar

(Gist)

No one can hope to make any effective mark upon his time and bring the aid that is worth bringing to great principles and struggling causes if he is not strong in his love and his hatred. I hate injustice, tyranny, pompousness and humbug, and my hatred embraces all those who are guilty of them. I want to tell my critics that I regard my feelings of hatred as a real force. They are only the reflex of the love I bear for the causes I believe  in and I am in no wise ashamed of it. For these reasons I tender no apology for my criticism of Mr. Gandhi and Mr. Jinnah, the two men who have brought India’s political progress to a standstill.

I am no worshipper of idols. I believe in breaking them. I insist that if I hate Mr. Gandhi and Mr. Jinnah—I dislike them, I do not hate them—it is because I love India more. That is the true faith of a nationalist. I have hopes that my countrymen, will some day learn that the country is greater than the men, that the worship of Mr. Gandhi or Mr. Jinnah and service to India are two very different things and may even be contradictory of each other.

Without the combination of sincerity and intellect no man can be great. A great man must be motivated by the dynamics of a social purpose and must act as the scourge and the scavenger of society.

As Abraham Lincoln said, “Politicians are a set of men who have interests aside from the interests of

the people and who, to say the most of them are taken as a mass, at least one long step removed from honest men.

Excommunication or the political prisoner

Social reformer and the political patriot

It is not Buddha who, as is often alleged, weakened Hindu society by his gospel of non-violence. It is the Brahminic theory of Chaturvarnya that has been responsible not only for the defeat but for the decay of Hindu society.

Rights are protected not by law but by the social and moral conscience of society. If social conscience is such that it is prepared to recognize the rights which law chooses to enact, rights will be safe and

secure. But if the fundamental rights are opposed by the community, no Law, no Parliament, no Judiciary can guarantee them in the real sense of the word.

What was the political philosophy of Ranade ? It may be summed up in three propositions :

(1) We must not set up as our ideal something which is purely imaginary. An ideal must be such that it must carry the assurance that it is a practicable one.

(2) In politics, sentiment and temperament of the people are more important than intellect and theory. This is particularly so in the matter of framing a Constitution. A constitution is as much a matter of taste as clothes are. Both must fit, both must please.

(3) In political negotiations the rule must be what is possible. That does not mean that we should be ontent with what is offered. No. It means that you must not refuse what is offered when you know that your sanctions are inadequate to compel your opponent to concede more par excellence.

Hero-worship is certainly not dead in India. India is still the land of idolatry. There is idolatry in religion, there is idolatry in politics. Heroes and hero-worship is a hard if unfortunate, fact in India’s political life.

I agree that hero-worship is demoralizing for the devotee and dangerous to the country. I welcome the criticism in so far as it conveys a caution that you must know that your man is really great before you start worshipping him. This unfortunately is not an easy task. For in these days, with the Press in hand, it is easy to manufacture great men. Carlyle used a happy phrase when he described the great men of history as so many Bank Notes. Like Bank Notes they represent gold. What we have to see is that they are not forged notes. I admit that we ought to be more cautious in our worship of great men. For in this country we have perhaps arrived at such a stage when alongside the notice boards saying “beware of pickpockets” we need to have notice boards saying “beware of great men”.

What did Ranade want to convey by these statements ? As I understand them, I think, Ranade wanted

to convey two things. The first thing he wanted to convey was that the conquest of India by Britain has given India the time, the opportunity and the necessary shelter for rebuilding, renovating and repairing her economic and social structure, to refit herself for bearing the strain of any foreign aggression when she does become free. The second thing Ranade wanted to convey was that going out of the British Empire by India before she had satisfied and solidified herself into a single nation, unified in thought, in feeling, and charged with a sense of a common destiny, was to invite chaos and disruption in the name of independence.

The real guarantee against despotism is to confront it with the possibility of its dethronement, of its being laid low, of its being superseded by a rival party.

There is in the first place what Bryce calls the fatalism of the multitude, that tendency to acquiesce and submit due to the sense of insignificance of individual effort, the sense of helplessness arising from the belief that the affairs of men are swayed by large forces whose movements cannot be turned by individual effort. In the second place there is possibility of the tyranny of the majority which often manifests in suppressing and subjecting to penalties and other social disabilities persons who do not follow the majority, of which some of us have good experience during the Congress regime. In the third place there is the fear of the C.I.D. The Gestapo and all the other instrumentalities which are at the disposal of the Government to shadow its critics and to silence them.

The secret of freedom is courage, and courage is born in combination of individuals into a party. A party is necessary to run Government. But two parties are necessary to keep Government from being a despotism. A democratic Government can remain democratic only if it is worked by two parties—a party in power and a party in opposition.

If the Liberals have faith in, and love and respect for Ranade their supreme duty lies not merely in assembling together to sing his praises but in organising themselves for spreading the Gospel of Ranade.

Thoughts on Lingustic States by Dr Ambedkar

(Gist)

(1) The idea of having a mixed State must be completely abandoned.

(2) Every State must be an unilingual State. One State, one language.
(3) The formula one State, one language must not be confused with the formula of one language, one State.

(4) The formula one language, one State means that all people speaking one language should be brought under one Government irrespective of area, population and dissimilarity of conditions among the people speaking the language. This is the idea that underlies the agitation for a united Maharashtra with Bombay. This is an absurd formula and has no precedent for it. It must be abandoned. A people speaking one language may be cut up into many States as is done in other parts of the world.

(5) Into how many States a people speaking one language should be cut up, should depend upon (1) the requirements of efficient administration, (2) the needs of the different areas, (3) the sentiments of the different areas, and (4) the proportion between the majority and minority.

(6) As the area of the State increases the proportion of the minority to the majority decreases and the position of the minority becomes precarious and the opportunities for the majority to practise tyranny over the minority become greater. The States must therefore be small.

(7) The minorities must be given protection to prevent the tyranny of the majority. To do this the Constitution must be amended and provisions must be made for a system on plural member constituencies (two or three) with cumulative voting.

A caste has all the exclusiveness and pride which a nation has. It is therefore not improper to speak of collection of castes as a collection of major and minor nations.

(1) Voting is always communal. The voter votes for the candidate of his community and not for the best candidate.

(2) The majority community carries the seat by sheer communal majority.

(3) The minority community is forced to vote for the candidate of the majority community.

(4) The votes of the minority community are not enough to enable the candidate to win the seat against the candidate put up by the majority community.

(5) As consequence of social system of graded inequality the voter of the higher (major) communities can never condescend to give his vote to a candidate of a minority community. On the other hand the voter of the minority community who is socially on a lower level takes pride in giving his vote to the candidate of the majority community. That is another reason why a candidate of a minority community loses in election.

These evil consequences of the caste system are sure to be sharpened by creation of Linguistic States. Minority communities may be crushed. If not crushed they may be tyrannized and oppressed. They are sure to be discriminated against and denied equality before law and equal opportunity in public life.

The caste is a nation but the rule of one caste over another may not be admitted to be the same as the rule of one nation over another. But supposing the case is not carried so far but is limited to majority and minority even then the question remains : What right has the majority to rule the minority?

A political majority is changeable in its class composition. A political majority grows. A communal ajority is born. The admission to a political majority is open. The door to a communal majority is closed. The politics of a political majority are free to all to make and unmake. The politics of a communal majority are made by its own members born in it.

A small stone of a consolidated majority placed on the chest of the minority may be borne. But the weight of a huge mountain it cannot bear. It will crush the minorities. Therefore creation of smaller States is a safeguard to the minorities.

Caste in India-Mechanism, Genesis and Development by Dr. Ambedkar

9 May 1916 Collumbia University
(Gist)

The population of India is a mixture of Aryans, Dravidians, Mongolians and Scythians. All these stocks of people came into India from various directions and with various cultures, centuries ago, when they were in a tribal state. They all in turn elbowed their entry into the country by fighting with their predecessors, and after a stomachful of it settled down as peaceful neighbours. Through constant contact and mutual intercourse they evolved a common culture that superseded their distinctive cultures.

Indian society still savours of the clan system, even though there are no clans ; and this can be easily seen from the law of matrimony which centres round the principle of exogamy, for it is not that Sapindas (blood-kins) cannot marry, but a arriage even between Sagotras (of the same class) is regarded as a sacrilege.

The problem of Caste, then, ultimately resolves itself into one of repairing the disparity between the marriageable units of the two sexes within it.

Thus the superposition of endogamy on exogamy means the creation of caste.

It will now be seen that the four means by which numerical disparity between the two sexes is conveniently maintained are : (1) burning the widow with her deceased husband ; (2) compulsory widowhood—a milder form of burning ; (3) imposing celibacy on the widower and (4) wedding him to a girl not yet marriageable.

Complex though it be in its general working the Hindu Society, even to a superficial observer, presents three singular uxorial customs, namely : (i) Sati or the burning of the widow on the funeral pyre of her deceased husband.

(ii) Enforced widowhood by which a widow is not allowed to remarry.

(iii) Girl marriage

Sati, enforced widowhood and girl marriage are customs that were primarily intended to solve the problem of the surplus man and surplus woman in a caste and to maintain its endogamy. Strict endogamy could not be preserved without these customs, while caste without endogamy is a fake.

We shall be well advised to recall at the outset that the Hindu society, in common with other societies, was composed of classes and the earliest known are the (1) Brahmins or the priestly class ; (2) the Kshatriya, or the military class ; (3) the Vaishya, or the merchant class and (4) the Shudra,or the artisan and menial class. Particular attention has to be paid to the

fact that this was essentially a class system, in which individuals, when qualified, could change their class, and therefore classes did change their personnel. At some time in the history of the Hindus, the priestly class socially detached itself from the rest of the body of people and through a closed-door policy became a caste by itself. The other classes being

subject to the law of social division of labour underwent differentiation, some into large, others into very minute groups. The Vaishya and Shudra classes were the original inchoate plasm, which formed the sources of the numerous castes of today. As the military occupation does not very easily lend itself to very minute sub-division, the Kshatriya class could

have differentiated into soldiers and administrators.

My study of the Caste problem involves four main points : (1) that in spite of the composite make-up of the Hindu population, there is a deep cultural unity; (2) that caste is a parcelling into bits of a larger cultural unit; (3) that there was

one caste to start with and (4) that classes have become Castes through imitation and excommunication.

समय

कौन कमबख्त कहता है,
कौन कमबख्त कहता है
कि आप बेजान हो रही,
आपतो उम्र के साथ
और भी जवां हो रही।

सिरफिरे है वो लोग
सिरफिरे है वो लोग
नादान भी है
नही पता उन्हें
नही पता उन्हें
आपकी रूह की खुशबू,
आपकी जवादिली का राज,
हमे पता है
हाँ हमे पता है
आप आज भी, अब भी
जिंदादिल भी है,
और बखूबी जवां भी है।

समय क्यों इतना मेहरबान है
आप पर इतना कदरदान है,
आहट भी नही आप पर
समय के प्रभाव का,
या तो समय आपके चौखट आना भूल गया
या समय खुद भी आपकी
खूबसूरती, मदहोशी के आगोश
में
डूब गया।

कोरोना स्पेशल

रोते हुए आते है सब
भैया रुको
बहना रुको
बच्चों रुको
बूढ़े रुको
ये कोरोना, एक दिन खुद ही
दुनिया से मिट जाएगा।

घर में बीबी बच्चों के संग
बैठो तुम आराम करो
खुद सुरक्षित रहकरके तुम
मानवता का काम करो
वायरस कोरोना,
का ये खतरा
खुद ब खुद
टल जाएगा।

तू किसी और के मिलने के बहाने

जां अगर प्यारा है

विनती तुम हमारा सुन लो

घर में अपनो संग

कुछ दिन का गुजारा कर लो।

जिन्दगी मिलती है

जीभरके जिये जाने को

मूर्खता कहते हैं

फोकट में गँवा आने को

खुद सुरक्षित हो

औरों की सुरक्षा कर लो।

कबूतर जा

जा जा 

जा जा

जा जा

चाइना से तू आया है,

हो .....ओ....

चाइना से तू आया है

वापस चाइना को जा

कोरोना जा जा जा

कोरोना जा जा जा।

अरे द्वारपालों

अरे चाइना वालों

मांसभक्षी सालों

तूने कोरोना का

काण्ड कर दिया है।

कीड़े मकोड़े 

खाकर के तूने

जीना सभी का

हराम कर दिया है।

लेके पहला पहला प्यार

हो के चाइना से पार

फैला पूरा संसार

वायरस कोरोना से दुनिया में

मचा हाहाकार।

कागज कलम दवात

घर अपने आराम करो

बस इतना सा काम करो

सरकारी आदेशों का

तुम भी मैं भी

सब मिलकर सम्मान करो।

तेरी मेरी कहानी

रुक लो, कुछ दिन
फैमिली में तुम,
अपनो के लिए।

तुम सुरक्षित हो,
हम सुरक्षित हो,
सब सुरक्षित हो
जग सुरक्षित हो।

रुक लो, कुछ दिन
फैमिली में तुम,
अपनो के लिए

गद्दी छोड़ो

गर कूबत नही,
देश चलाने की,
देश सम्भालने की,
तो दरख्वास्त है,
विनम्र विनती है,
गद्दी छोड़ो।

सिर्फ भौकाल ठेलना आता है,
हवाई फायर करना आता है,
फटाफट फर्राटेदार,
स्वादिस्ट बोलियों से,
उरुझाकर, फंसाकर,
आंसू टपकाकर,
मोहित सम्मोहित कर,
भावुकता का स्वांग,
बहुभाँति ड्रामेबाजी करके,
नाटक और नौटंकी करके,
हमदर्द, हमसफ़र और हमराज का,
प्रपंच करके,
दिन में तारे,
रात में उजाले का एहसास दिलाकर,
कभी हंसाता है,
कभी रुलाता है,
कभी भौकाली भौचक्के में फंसकर,
आदमी महा कंफ्यूज हो जाता है,
जब तक समझ आये,
कि कुछ गड़बड़ हुआ,
कुछ तो गड़बड़ हुआ,
तब तक बहुरूपिये का नया रूप,
नया फरमान, आदेश अध्यादेश;
तुम गिरगिट हो,
नाकाबिल अयोग्य हो,
देश चलाने में अक्षम हो,
एक घटिया प्रयोग हो,
उतरो सिंहासन खाली करो,
जब बूत नही देश चलाने की,
तो गद्दी छोड़ो।

कब तक बहकाओगे,
बहलाओगे, फुसलाओगे;
बेवकूफ पर बेवकूफ,
पूरे देश को बनाओगे;
इतिहास माफ नही करेगा,
समय माफ करेगा,
गद्दारों में शीर्ष पर,
तुम्हारा नाम लिखा जाएगा,
भद्दे और अवमानित तौर से,
तुम्हारा नाम लिया जाएगा;
गुरूर टूटेगा,
जब समय करवट लेगा,
क्यों तुले हो,
बर्बाद करने को,
देश को, देश की आवाम को,
नैतिकता का यदि बोध है,
जरा भी, जरा से भी,
छोड़ दो,
काबिज सत्ता को, सिंहासन को,
भारत को,
भारत के भाग्य पर छोड़ दो,
गद्दी छोड़ दो।

भारत में ताकत है,
भारत में शक्ति है,
हर वार,
हर तूफान,
सहने की, आगे बढ़ने की;
मृतपाय अव्यवस्था को,
नवजीवन, नवशक्ति देने की;
भारत चल लेगा,
खुद अपने पाँव,
अपने बल पर,
आगे बढ़ लेगा;
पहले भी चोटें खाई है,
अपनो से धोखे पाई है,
पर गिरकर, उठकर और संभलकर,
आगे बढ़ गया,
भारत फिर भारत बन गया;
हजार कोशिशें हुई,
भारत को तोड़ने की,
कमजोर करने की,
शासकों सम्राटों की बदनीयती ने,
बदइंतज़ामी और बदमाशी ने,
नासमझी, बेवकूफी अय्याशी ने,
चोट किया,
घात और प्रतिघात किया,
चोटिल जख्मी भारत ने,
हर हाल, काल,
प्रतिकूल परिस्थिति में,
खुद को सही सुरक्षित,
और सलामत रखा;
ए भारत के सौदागर,
तुम रहम करो,
बस इतना से करम करो,
छोड़ दो,
भारत को भारत के भरोसे,
छोड़ दो,
गद्दी छोड़ दो।