The Mob Lynching Narrative – Fact Check

1). Army man Amanullah Khan gets killed by robbers, assorted fearmongers give it a communal twist and call it ‘lynching’

Incident Report: PTI news feed had reported that a retired army officer was ‘thrashed to death’ in Amethi.
Soon it was spread widely that the veteran was ‘lynched’ to death.

Seetharam Yechuri Tweeted: “Lynchings of minorities in BJP ruled states continues with impunity. That the victim was a retired army officer only bears testimony to the level of hatred being fuelled by this political ideology where those responsible for punishing lynchers protect them.”

FactCheck: 64-year-old Amanullah Khan, a retired Army Captain, was murdered in his house in Kamrauli area by unidentified assailants on the morning of July 28 in a suspected theft case. – Reported by ANI UP on 29th July 2019

Source: https://www.opindia.com/2019/07/amethi-amanullah-khan-army-killed-thieves/

Note: He and his wife were attacked in their house by unidentified assailants during a robbery contrary to the claims that he was lynched for being a Muslim.

2). Tabrez Ansari Case: Tabrez Ansari murdered in a theft case in Jharkhand jail on June 21.

Media reported that he was lynched to death by a mob for not chanting Jai Sri Ram.
Article in The Hindu: “Lynching, not murder: On Tabrez Ansari killing” – 12th September 2019

FactCheck: Doctor says Tabrez Ansari could have died of cardiac arrest, police maintain mob lynching not cause of death: Reports on 12th September.

Vishwa Hindu Parishad demanded action against conspiracy behind spreading fake news. (Source: https://www.organiser.org//Encyc/2019/9/11/Tabrez-investigation-report-again-exposes-the-conspiracy-of-secularists.html)

 

3). Teen set ablaze for ‘not chanting’ Jai Shri Ram dies: Police – Reported by India Today on 30th July, 2019 quoting PTI as Source (Link: https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/teen-set-ablaze-for-not-chanting-jai-shri-ram-dies-police-1575312-2019-07-30)
Muslim boy set on fire, claims attacked for not chanting Jai Shri Ram, UP Police rejects charge – Reported by same India Today on 30th July 2019 (https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/boy-set-on-fire-for-not-chanting-jai-shri-ram-1574601-2019-07-29)
Report by The Times of India on 29th July 2019: News of Muslim boy set ablaze for not Chanting Jai Sri Ram is FAKE 

(Link: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/times-fact-check/news/fake-alert-news-of-muslim-boy-set-ablaze-for-not-chanting-jai-shri-ram-is-fake/articleshow/70433608.cms)
– FactCheck: On 29th July, Chandauli District SP Santosh Kumar in his 6 min long live video on Facebook clarified that the statement given by victim was doubtful, baseless, fabricated and malicious.

(Link: https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/boy-set-on-fire-for-not-chanting-jai-shri-ram-1574601-2019-07-29)

 

4). Karimnagar (Telangana): Case registered against Muslim boy for making false allegation that he was beaten up for not chanting Jai Sri Ram.

Incident:  – The Muslim boy has been trashed by locals for stalking a girl.

– Fake news spread by Mr. Amjed Ullah Khan, leader of Majlis Bachao Tehreek party that muslim boy was beaten by Hindus for not chanting Jai Sri Ram.

(Link: https://www.aninews.in/news/national/general-news/case-registered-muslim-boy-for-making-false-allegation20190604180420/)

FactCheck: the Muslim boy & his father have confessed in a video to Karimnagar Police that he was beaten up for allegedly harrassing a teenage girl & there was no communal angle in it.

 

5). Aurangabad: Four engineering students held for forcing youth – Report by Times of India – 23rd July, 2019

(News Link: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/aurangabad/aurangabad-four-engineering-students-held-for-forcing-youths-to-chant-jai-shri-ram/articleshow/70338475.cms)

Aurangabad: Sheikh Aamer faked ‘forced to chant Jai Shri Ram’ story to get applauded in the community – OpIndia Report

FactCheck: 

The alleged victim Aamer reportedly contrived a story that the 4 youths he had an altercation with had forced him to chant ‘Jai Shri Ram’ slogan and filed his complaint on this basis at the police station to seek grandstanding from members of his community.

However, barely a day after filing a complaint that some persons had forcibly asked him to chant ‘Jai Shri Ram’, the alleged victim Aamer went back on his statement. Aamer conceded that he fabricated the story of ‘Jai Shri Ram’ slogan being enforced upon him to raise his stature among his community members and teach those who dare to challenge people from his community a lesson.

(Source: LokMat Samachar, Page-1, July 23rd, 2019)

Advertisements

Civilisational Narrative – An Imperative

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s choice of Mahabalipuram for his informal meeting with President Xi Jinping has an obvious, deep significance and even a deeper message“, writes noted columnist, thinker and political commentator, Sri S.Gurumurthy.

(Courtesy: NewIndianExpress.com | Published: 11th October 2019)

It is strategic civilisational diplomacy at its symbolic best. Narendra Modi found that his second informal summit with Xi Jinping at Mahabalipuram in 2019 had been fixed 1,500 years ago by a prince of the Pallava dynasty, which ruled Mahabalipuram from Kanchipuram. The Pallava prince from Kanchipuram renounced the throne, became a Buddhist monk, known as Bodhi Dharma in India and DaMo in China, almost like how prince Siddhartha became Buddha. His guru asked him to go to Zhen Dan- today’s China.

Bodhi Dharma, who became India’s first spiritual ambassador to China, also emerged as its chief mentor. Regarded as Buddhaabdara (Buddha’s Avatar), he expounded Zen Buddhism and founded the famous Shaolin Temple in China’s Henan province.

Revered as the first Patriarch of China, the rest of the Buddhist world listed him as the 28th in line from Buddha. Modi is now reviving memories of Bodhi Dharma to position him as the icon of India’s civilisational outreach to China, which is integral to his overarching strategic civilisational diplomacy.

Bodhi Dharma’s foray was not limited to China. Popular as DaMo in China, as Dalma in Korea, Daruma in Japan, Dharmottara in Tibet, with his name echoing in Vietnam too, he ended up as India’s cultural ambassador to most of Asia. Just as Modi began gradually changing the secular narrative of India into a civilisational narrative within after his historic victory in 2014, he extended it to foreign relations as well. In 2015, he began writing a strategic Hindu-Buddhist civilisational narrative to give thrust to India’s Look East philosophy.The Mahabalipuram summit, which recalls the 5th-century DaMo today, is an important chapter in Modi’s overarching civilisational narrative to handle the relationship with China that was seriously damaged in the late 1950s and early 1960s. So, the Namo-Xi summit should be seen in the backdrop of Modi’s national strategic narrative.

Post-Independence Secular India – a civilisational orphan

With the rise of radical Islamist terror, particularly the 9/11 attack, Samuel Huntington’s view that the world would become increasingly civilisation conscious virtually binned the utopian Francis Fukuyama’s prognosis of a world free of conflicts founded on free market and liberal democracy.

The politically diverse Western nations began to be seen more as civilisationally Christian, Japan as a civilisation state and China as a civilisation pretending to be a state. But secular India continued to remain orphaned without a civilisational name and a narrative of its own.
Post-Independence India did not attempt to reinstate the national narrative it had lost due to centuries of foreign domination even after it rediscovered it during the freedom movement. Instead, it enjoyed living on borrowed narratives like secularism and socialism.

Lost in fake secularism that increasingly rested on vote-bank politics and in the failed socialism, which proved to be a global disaster, India ignored its spiritual and civilisational foundations that would have helped it develop its own national civilisational narrative. India’s distorted secularism undermined its civilisational assets. Result: India, which had become part of the universal notions of secularism and socialism, had nothing special to talk about itself.

In a seminal essay (to mark the 25th anniversary of Huntington’s clash theory) on civilisational exchanges between China and India titled “Civilisational Perspectives in International Relations and Contemporary China-India Relations”, Ravi Dutt Bajpai (Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia) asserts that India and China were both civilisation states but adds, “Although India’s ancient civilisational legacy originates from its Hindu-Buddhist religious beliefs, the constitutional secularism in the Indian polity makes it difficult for the state to flaunt a religious identity.”

Indian intellectualism was even blind to the historical fact that each materialist ideology that succeeded one another and dominated the world for the last couple of centuries increasingly had a shorter shelf life. Colonialism lasted for 200 years. Capitalism lasted100 years. Communism lasted 50 years. And globalisation has been pronounced dead by its chief proponent The Economist magazine in just 25 years. Our nation of thousands of years of these dominant thoughts sprouting, growing and, as Swami Vivekananda said, “vanishing like ripples on the face of waters, living a few hours of exultant and exuberant dominance”. India’s fate as a civilisational orphan continued even after socialism proved to be a global fiasco and secularism turned fake at home. It continued to adopt the socialist narrative for half a century and later a globalist narrative for a quarter more.

In this period, India saw Confucian China re-emerging out of communist China that violently banished Confucius for half a century. India saw ex-communist China establishing over 1,200 Confucian centres and classrooms the world over to present itself as a Confucian civilisation. It saw communist Russia turning Orthodox Christian, socialist Poland turning Roman Catholic.

Yet, it continued with its outdated and borrowed narrative that negated its own spiritual and civilisational foundation, which Mahatma Gandhi in his seminal thesis Hind Swaraj had emphasised as its unifying force. Till Modi came to power, India did not even think of making a draft national narrative for bilateral and multilateral relationship building.

National narrative- an imperative

The world which became obsessed with globalism after the Cold War, recently began rediscovering the need for a national narrative. The idea of a national strategic narrative was felt in the US in 2009. In 2011, the US government and the Woodrow Wilson International Center jointly authored a paper on the national strategic doctrine in 2011. The paper said:

A narrative is a story. A national strategic narrative must be a story that all Americans can understand and identify within their own lives. America’s national story has always see-sawed between exceptionalism and universalism. We think that we are an exceptional nation, but a core part of that exceptionalism is a commitment to universal values — to the equality of all human beings not just within the borders of the United States, but around the world.”

Later, in 2017, came a paper titled “Stories about ourselves: How national narratives influence the diffusion of large-scale energy technologies” by Joint Global Change Research Institute, United States Maryland School of Public Policy, University of Maryland.

The paper said, “A national narrative rationalises and is supported by the nation’s identity. The narrative gives citizens an awareness of their common values and characteristics as a nation; it also situates a nation among other nations as unique (at least in part). If successful, the national narrative (is) a source of pride domestically and respect from other nations…. Of course, no nation exhibits unanimity around a single story; instead, ‘we find a polyphony of voices, overlapping and crisscrossing; contradictory and ambiguous; opposing, affirming and negotiating their views of the nation.’”

National narrative is NO outdated concept. It is very much a contemporary need. Yet the Indian discourse did not attempt a national civilisational and strategic narrative for India, even though the Supreme Court had held as early as in 1995 — which it refused to review even as late as 2016 — that secular India is compatible in cultural terms with Hindu India.

Narendra Modi writes India’s national strategic narrative

Modi’s tryst with Buddha started soon after he became the Prime Minister. He saw Buddha as the civilisational face of India and Buddhism as the most effective bridge to link the culturally Hindu India with the civilisationally Buddhist Asia.

Modi has endeavoured to integrate Buddha with India’s Look East doctrine. He saw that Dharma in Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Jain traditions in India and Dhamma in diverse Buddhist traditions in Asia linked people of both traditions more intimately than any single or multiple state policy or pact. Cognate civilisations vault over state-erected walls to connect people with people. Modi saw the Hindu-Buddhist civilisational nexus as the most potent people-to-people link, which even the modern and ex-communist states like China could not ignore.

The Prime Minister’s strategic Hindu-Buddhist civilisational diplomacy started with his first visit to Japan in early 2015. Modi quickly roped in Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe into a joint Indo-Japan initiative of “Samvad” — Sanskrit word meaning “dialogue” — through strategic think tanks in Japan, Tokyo Foundation and Japanese Foundation, and the Vivekananda International Foundation in Delhi.

And the first Samvad of Hindu-Buddhist nations on the theme of Conflict Avoidance and Environmental Consciousness took place in September 2015. In his video address to the Samvad, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said that the idea of Dharma, which was the foundation of Japan’s rule of law, was India’s gift to Japan — a declaration emotionally more powerful than any economic or political pact.

The Samvad

The year 2015 ended with the Bodh Gaya Declaration to make it the global centre of enlightenment. The Samvad II was held in Myanmar in 2017 and Samvad III in Mongolia in September 2019. The Indian and Japanese prime ministers inaugurated each of the three Samvad meets by direct or video address.

The impact of the Modi-Abe civilisational outreach of Samvad on the Buddhist world is phenomenal. The most leading global Buddhist website, the Buddhist Door Global (BDG), which had said in 2017 that “India’s efforts at Buddhist diplomacy are not easy to accomplish”, did a U-turn in 2019 to accept Samvad as “a burgeoning, informal alliance of Buddhist Asian democracies”, adding that “Modi and his allies have been responsible for a resurgence of Buddhist diplomacy unseen in modern Indian history”.

The report concluded, “Words like conflict avoidance and environment consciousness (Samvad’s consistent conference themes) conjure a very specific mode of Buddhist action: one that always leads back to New Delhi’s very unique understanding of transnational Buddhist power.

Undoubtedly Modi has innovated a national civilisational and strategic narrative for India not just for relating to Asia but for relating to the world, by globalising and positioning Indian-Asian Buddha as the icon of his presentation at the UN recently, contrasting Buddha (enlightenment) with Yuddha (war).

As Namo invokes DaMo at Mahabalipuram

Modi’s choice of distant Mahabalipuram for his informal meeting with Xi has an obvious, deep significance and even a deeper message. Can a China that has discarded communism and begun reinstating neo-Confucianism as its national narrative and an India that has discarded the failed socialism and fake secularism and begun re-writing the national narrative in civilisational terms find their common Hindu-Buddhist civilisational roots in Mahabalipuram? Will the spirit of DaMo help Namo and Xi accomplish that will be seen this weekend and in what unfolds thereafter.

Namo’s strategy is to find positive answers to such and other questions is manifest in his choice of the venue — DaMo’s Mahabalipuram.

The civilisational link between the peoples of India and China has always been stronger than any government-to-government policy declarations. Modi’s attempt seems to be to awaken the unleveraged civilisational impulses to relate to China whose aggression in 1962 damaged India’s trust in its neighbour.

How Modi handled the Doklam issue has obviously convinced the mighty neighbour that India is no more a pushover. Namo is invoking DaMo, the deeper spiritual chord between India and China, to restore mutual trust, which will be the foundation for a stable and trustworthy India-China relationship.

Postscript: Yet another Kanchi connection to China-India relations. The Sage of Kanchi (the Shankaracharya of Kanchi) who lived for 100 years told the writer of this article in the early 1990s that India should settle the border row with China, which the Sage saw as India’s cultural ally. The writer had mentioned this in 2003 to Atal Bihari Vajpayee when as India’s Prime Minister he was going to China. It was then that the NSA-level talks commenced with China for settlement of the border dispute. Whether recalling DaMo by Namo will fulfil the desire of the Kanchi saint remains to Be seen.

(Courtesy: Sri S Gurumurthy, http://www.newindianexpress.com/opinions/columns/s-gurumurthy/2019/oct/11/will-damo-help-namo-and-xi-at-mahabalipuram-2045734.html)

RSS Sarsanghchalak Mohan ji Bhagwat’s VijayaDashami Address – Yu 5121

Summary of the address by Param Poojaniya Sarsanghchalak Dr. Shri Mohan ji Bhagwat on the occasion of Sri Vijayadasami Utsav Yu 5121 , (Tuesday, October 8, 2019)

(Translation from the original in Hindi) – Content Source : http://www.rss.org ;

(Pictures added additionally )

Respected chief guest, invited guests who specially came here to witness this function, venerable seers, Mananeeya Sanghchalaks, all Mananeeya Adhikaris of the Sangh, mothers, sisters, eminent citizens and beloved Swayamsevak brothers.

The year preceding this Vijayadasami was very special as the 550th Prakash Varsh of Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji and the 150th birth anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi. The programmes planned in this connection will continue for some time till their scheduled time-period ends. In the meanwhile, Dattopant Ji Thengadi’s birth centenary year will also start from November 10. However, some important events that had taken place in the past year have made it more memorable to us.

The Lok Sabha election results were declared in the month of May. These elections attracted the attention of the whole world. The timely and systematic conduct of the elections in Bharat, a country of continental proportion brimming with diversity, was the prime cause of attraction for the world. Similarly, was the change in 2014 a mere result of a negative political wave born out of the disenchantment against the previous government, or the people had made up their mind to go in a specific direction: was to be seen in the elections of 2019. The world took note of that also. The people have expressed their firm opinion: democracy is not a new unfamiliar thing that has been imported from outside but it has been ingrained in the national psyche as a result of centuries of tradition and collective experiences and enlightenment gained during the post-independence period; and as a result, the society has resolved to remain in and take forward democracy successfully. This fact came to the attention of all. The society by electing the new government with an increased number of seats has endorsed its past performance and expressed a lot of expectations for the future.

courtesy OpIndia

The move of the re-elected regime to nullify Article 370 has once again proved that it has the courage to fulfill those expectations and respect people’s sentiments and wishes in the interest of the country. Removal of Article-370 has been already in the thought of the ruling party. But this time by skillfully garnering the support of other parties in both houses, with strong logic and plea in consonance with public sentiment the work was accomplished, for which the members of the ruling party, including the Prime Minister and Home Minister, and other political parties who upheld the public sentiments in Parliament deserve congratulations. This effort will come to fruition only when justice denied under the influence of Article 370 is restored, injustices occurred are brought to an end. It will happen when our Kashmiri Pandits who were unjustly driven away are brought back and rehabilitated and allowed to remain secure, fearless, patriotic and Hindu. Many a right of residents of Kashmir which were denied to them so far will be restored, and false fears instilled in the minds of brothers of the Valley that there is a threat to their property and jobs due to the nullification of Article 370, will be removed and having done away with those fears, they will be able to perform their duties towards the country’s development with brotherly affinity and concord with the people of the rest of Bharat.

In the month of September, our scientists, with their talent, had caught the attention and earned the praise and sympathy of the scientific community of the entire world when they landed Chandrayaan’s “Vikram” on the hitherto unexplored region, the South Pole of the Moon. Although the mission did not attain full success as expected, achieving so much in the first attempt itself is a feat not accomplished so far by the entire world. Due to this daring mission of our scientists, the world’s admiration for our country’s intellectual genius and scientific prowess and commitment to realise the goals through hard work has increased. The matured intellect and action of the people, an awakened sense of pride in the country and firm commitment of the government along with experience of our scientific expertise— all these pleasant feelings have made the last year memorable forever.

However, this is not the time either to revel in the given pleasant circumstances or become lazy and let down our guard and loose our interest, become inactive, indulge in luxury and selfishness, leaving everything to the government. Our ultimate goal – making Bharat glorious and prosperous – towards which we have started our journey is still far off. The forces, seeking to create hurdles in the path and block the way, have not yet stopped their machination. There are some crises before us, which needed to be overcome. There are some questions, which need to be answered by us. And, there are some problems for which we need to find solutions to tackle them.

As far as crises are concerned, there are always circumstances where there are problems in the life of an individual or the world. Some crises are visible. Some come to the fore later. As long as our body, mind and intellect remain alert, healthy and responsive, the possibility of successfully tackling the crises will also increase. Fortunately, the security capability of our country, preparedness of our armed forces, security policy of our government and the situation of our expertise in international politics– in all these aspects the situation has developed to such a level that we remain alert and confident. The security alertness along our land and maritime borders is better now. However the number of guards and checkposts on land borders, and surveillance along the maritime border, especially on islands, have to be increased. The terrorist violence has declined in the country. The number of terrorists surrendering is also on the rise.

Still, for a human being, there is always a fear of a possible crisis from within as well. The agents that cause many a trouble reside in the body. If the body’s immunity comes down their impact becomes visible, otherwise, there won’t be any hassle.

We all know that, in the past few years, there has been a transformation in the direction of the thought process of Bharat. There are many people in the world and in Bharat as well, who do not want this. A developed Bharat creates fear in the minds of vested interests: such forces will also not want Bharat to be strong and vibrant. Unfortunately, the prevailing state of social unity, equality and harmony in Bharat is not up to the desired level. These forces are seen to be taking advantage of the situation.  thereby creating diverse and conflicting streams in the national mainstream – such efforts are underway. It is essential to be alert in identifying these plots and counter them on intellectual and social planes. Even well-meaning policies, decision or statements coming from persons in the government or administration are used by misinterpretation or distortion, to benefit their nefarious designs by these forces. Alertness is a constant necessity. While all these activities are underway, there is an overt or covert effort to create disaffection towards the civil discipline and law of the land. This has to be countered at all levels.

Nowadays, there have been reports that members of a community in our society have been attacked by another community, making them victims of social violence. Such incidents have not been one-sided. There are reports of incidents happening from both sides and allegations and counter-allegations. It has also come to light that some incidents have been deliberately fabricated while some others have been published in a distorted manner. However, it must be accepted that these tendencies of violence have somehow or the other crossed the limits of the law and order and wreaked havoc by eroding the mutual relations in the society. Neither this tendency is the tradition of our country nor does it fit in the spirit of the Constitution.

Howsoever deep the difference of opinion be, howsoever provocative actions might have taken place, still, we should act by remaining within the limits of Constitution, handing over such cases to the police and reposing faith in the judicial system of the country. This is the duty of the citizens of a free nation. The Sangh has never supported the people who were involved in such incidents and it stands against each and every such incident. Swayamsevaks are working in this direction so that such incidents do not take place. But by branding such incidents by the words like ‘lynching’, denoting the traditions which were alien to Bharat and belong elsewhere, efforts are underway to defame our country and the entire Hindu society and create fear among the so-called minority communities. We have to understand that such a conspiracy is also being hatched. Everyone should keep away from talking in provocative language or indulging in provocative acts. The so-called leaders—who in the name of advocating the interests of a specific community create clash in between the two communities of our society and have made an industry out of their pursuits for self-aggrandisement—should not be patronised. Adequate laws exist in the country to curb such incidents. They must be honestly and strictly implemented.

Different sections of the society should strive to increase goodwill, dialogues and cooperation among themselves. In today’s context, it is absolutely important to work for the goodwill, harmony and cooperation among all sections of society and follow the discipline by keeping ourselves within the limits of Constitution while expressing our ideas or working for the protection of our interests. The Sangh Swayamsevaks have been taking efforts to enhance this type of dialogues and cooperation. Even then, decisions on some matters are required to be taken by the courts. Whatever be the decision, it is the duty of responsible citizens that they should not hurt the mutual goodwill through words or deeds. It is not the responsibility of any one community; it is the responsibility of all. Each one should follow it and start with oneself.

Slowing down of the world economy has left its impacts everywhere. Many countries including Bharat have to suffer the resultant of the ongoing global trade war between the US and China. The government has taken many initiatives to tide over the situation in the last one-and-a-half months. This gives a definite indication of the government’s sensitivity towards people’s interests and its prompt and pro-active attitude. We will definitely come out of this cycle of so called recession. The personalities leading our economy are competent enough.

To strengthen the economy, the government is compelled to take steps such as allowing Foreign Direct Investment and disinvestment of industries. However, while implementing many government schemes and welfare policies at the lower level, more alacrity and efficiency and avoiding unnecessary stringency can set many matters right.

Forgetting the Swadeshi consciousness, while seeking answers to the pressures of the situation, will also lead to loss. Dattopant Thengadi considered ‘Swadeshi’ as an expression of patriotism in day-to-day life. Acharya Vinoba Bhave described it as self-reliance (Swaavalamban) and non-violence (Ahimsa). As per any yardstick, those who have got the capacity to be self-reliant and provide employment for all in the country, keeping themselves secured, can only build and expand the international trade relations and offer a secure and healthy future for the entire humanity. Considering our economic scenario, even if we have to choose any circuitous route, we must overcome the compulsions once and for all by setting a destination and direction based on our own strength.

However, to minimise the impact of other immediate crises and the ups and downs of the world economy on our financial system, we need to go to the basics and ponder. We have to formulate our own economic vision keeping in mind our requirements, profile and condition of our people and our resources and potential to realise our national aspirations. The prevailing world economic thought is unable to answer many questions. Its standards are also incomplete in many ways; this fact has come before several economists of the world. In that situation, we have to take steps to formulate our own economic vision, policy and system that instil in us capacity to create more and more employment with least consumption of energy that is beneficial for the environment, make us self-reliant in every respect, and create and expand trade relations with the world on the basis of our strength and terms.

We are lagging behind in thinking about this ‘Swa’ even decades after attaining Independence, the root cause behind this is the education system, which was contrived during the period of slavery to keep us slaves, and the same is being continued even after attaining freedom. So we have to give a shape to our educational framework also in tune with Bharatiya vision. Evidently, when we study about the countries, which topped in the field of education in the world, we find that the reason of their academic excellence is the attention they have given to the Swa-centred education. We need a relevant, logical, truthful, dutiful education system, based on an approach on the basis of love towards the whole universe and compassionate outlook towards all living beings, which gives comprehensive knowledge and pride about our language (Swa Bhasha), our attire (Swa Bhoosha), and our culture (Swa Sanskriti).  We feel the need for a radical transformation from curriculum to teachers’ training. This cannot be achieved through mere structural changes.

Along with the absence of these components in education, degradation of culture and unethical and immoral behaviour in the society are the reasons behind the two major issues in social life. In a country where women were revered as mothers (matruvadparadareshu), where big wars were waged to protect the self-respect of women that became subject of the great epics Ramayan and Mahabharat, where martyrdoms like jouhar took place to safeguard the chastity, there the spate of incidents which are happening today indicates that our mothers and sisters are not safe and secure both in family and society; this is matter of shame for all us. We have to make our mothers enlightened, self-reliant, and capable of self-protection. The sanctity and decency of our culture is to be instilled in the men’s approach towards women.

We all know, right from childhood this training starts in the family atmosphere. Sheer absence of this is seen in today’s nuclear families. Another frightening symptom of this is the growing level of drug addiction in the new generation. There was a time when even the youth of a culturally rich nation like China were made drug addicts by foreign powers, rendering them soulless. The prevention of the devastating consequences of this social evil will be a very difficult task unless our families cultivate a strong mentality to abstain from temptation of durgs, incline towards moral life, and keep away from getting allured; thus, avoid these dangers. In this regard, it is imperative that all guardians including the Sangh Swayamsevaks remain alert and active.

Rampant financial and character corruption, which is being experienced in the society, primarily emanates from this cultural degradation. From time to time, in order to control this, laws are being made and examples are set by severely punishing the corrupt persons. Though healthy and clean corrective measures are taken at the top level, the corrupt practices continue to take place at the low level. And, at times, apparently making use of these controlling measures, corruption is growing. In the perplexity of following the stringent laws, honest persons suffer and get entangled in difficulties, and those shameless and defiant who disregard law and morality flourish by circumventing the system. This is not just government’s responsibility. The greed to amass more without deserving, without any or less effort, has crept into our minds in the form of a perversion, is the root cause of corruption. In the social atmosphere, transforming the situation through awakening and setting examples of ideal conduct in households, is an inevitable responsibility for health and order of this country.

Media have a major role in awakening the society and creating a conducive social atmosphere. Coming out of the commercial attitude of churning out mere spicy and sensational contents, if the media join in creating a constructive atmosphere, this endeavour will gain momentum.

Just as the situation in our society underscores the need for us to wake up and think about making the atmosphere healthy, similarly the external environment of the entire world demands a broad initiative of the humanity.  The policy initiative to make the environment healthy is a subject related to the process of ushering in appropriate and inclusive changes in the environmental policies of all nations. However, taking necessary steps towards bringing in minor changes in the day-to-day behaviour of common people is also effective in this direction. The Sangh Swayamsevaks are also doing many such works in this field. To make all their activities more systematic, an endeavour namely ‘Paryavaran Gatividhi’ has started as a social project.

For the last nine decades, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh has been working for creating ekatmata (unity), sadbhavana (goodwill), sadacharan (good conduct) and sadvyavahar (good behaviour) in the society, and a clear vision and devotion towards the nation. It is quite evident that the service mentality and devotion of Swayamsevaks have created a trust all over the country. However, attempts are being made to create distrust, fear and hostility among sections who have not yet come in contact with the Sangh. The Sangh is organising the Hindu society: a relentless and misconstrued campaign is going on to extrapolate this to mean that it harbours hatred against those sections, especially Muslims and Christians, who do not call themselves Hindu. There is an orchestrated effort to malign the Hindu society and Hindutva through a number of baseless and slanderous allegations. Behind this nefarious design, there is a thought process, which is relentlessly working to keep our society divided and make use of it for its self-interests. This is so clear that only those who deliberately keep their eyes shut don’t grasp it.

The vision and proclamation of the Sangh regarding the identity of the nation, social identity of all of us, and the identity of the country’s nature, are clear, well-thought-of and firm that Bharat is Hindustan, Hindu Rashtra. In the view of the Sangh, the word Hindu is not confined to just those who call themselves Hindus. Those who belong to Bharat, those of who are descendants of Bharatiya ancestors, those who are working for the ultimate glory of the nation and joining hands in enhancing peace by mingling with each other and accepting, respecting and welcoming all diversities; all those Bharatiyas are Hindus. Whatever may be their mode of worship, language, food habits, lifestyle, and native place, those will not make any difference. Strong person and society are fearless. Such strong people, with unblemished character, will not frighten anyone. Only the weak people, due to fear born out of their feeling of insecurity, will try to frighten others. The Sangh is making the whole Hindu society such strong, virtuous and benevolent that it will not fear or frighten anyone, but save the weak and the frightened.

The confusing concept of the word Hindu, the imagination of confining this to the framework of religion has been distracting our intellect right from the time of the British. There is a section of society, which does not accept this word. They use the term Bharatiya for themselves. Some people address the civilisations based on the Bharatiya nature and culture as Indic in English. Those who use alternative words for themselves, out of fear or confusion, and negate the word Hindu, are also acceptable for the Sangh. Words may be different, ways and customs and mode of worship may be different, food habits and lifestyles may be different, nativity may be different, state and language may be different, but we are not considering those sections of society different from each other. Accepting all those as our own, the Sangh work goes on. This feeling of affinity and inclusiveness is the consciousness of the nation. That is Hindutva. The sacred goal of fulfilling the relevant, all-round glory of our ancient nation and preserving as well as enhancing the Dharma Pran nature and culture, is at the core and destination of this affinity.

For the world, Bharat is an absolute necessity. Bharat has to stand on its own strong foundation of nature and culture. So with this clear concept about the nation and its pride in mind, it is necessary to make the feelings of goodwill, good conduct and harmony strong in the entire society. In all these endeavours, the Sangh Swayamsevaks have a significant role to play and will continue to do so. The Sangh Swayamsevaks are active in making the plans useful for this a success. Accepting the challenges of the times, each Swayamsevak has to work for this.

However, this need of the hour will be fulfilled only when we do away with the mentality of leaving the responsibility of this task upon an individual or organisation and become a mute spectator. The task of achieving progress of a nation, finding solutions to the problems of society, seeking redemption of crises: all these cannot be outsourced. Someone or the other may take up the task of leading, from time to time, but it is impossible to attain the complete and eternal success unless the enlightened society with a clear vision, selfless and honest effort and impenetrable unity do not volunteer to intervene with strong force.

The Sangh is working to create Karyakartas who are able to build congenial atmosphere for this work. The activities carried out by these Karyakartas in the society and their impact have proved today that this is the right way to make us, our family, our country and our world happy.

This is the appeal to you all, taking into account the requirements of current period, we all should participate in this noble and sacred mission.

युग परिवर्तन की बेला में , हम सब मिलकर साथ चले 

देश धर्म की रक्षा के हित , सहते सब आघात चले 

मिलकर साथ चले, मिलकर साथ चले 

भारत माता की जय .

Philosophies of Gandhi and Deendayal

– Dr. Walter K. Anderson (American scholar, author of “Brotherhood in Saffron”).

After Mohandas Gandhi’s emergence as the major figure in India’s freedom movement in the 1920’s his life, thought and program became benchmarks against which other Indian political and social figures were compared. There has been a marked revival of interest in Gandhi since the electoral victory of the Janata Party, many of whose leaders trace the Party’s ideological roots to him.

Simultaneously, there has been a developing interest in the life of Deendayal Upadhyaya. Until recently, he was not widely known outside the confines of the Jan Sangh.

It was almost inevitable, both for intellectual and ideological reasons, that the two men would be compared. However, there are major difficulties in any effort to do so. The political environment in which they worked was different; their own social backgrounds were not the same; their most immediate political objectives were not the same. Perhaps, the most difficult problem is the lack of available material on Upadhyaya. Unlike Gandhi, who was among the most public of private men, Upadhyaya was a quiet man who preferred to operate out of the spotlight. The published compendium on his life and thought is still very thin. Research is now in progress in India to rectify the situation and the time may be near when we will get a more complete picture of his contribution to the social and political thought of India. Consequently, any attempt to compare Upadhayaya and Gandhi will have to be very preliminary and subject to much revision as more information comes to light. Those best qualified to speak on him are people who worked closely with Upadhayaya and hopefully they will contribute to the efforts of those who are collecting material on him.

Gandhi and Upadhayaya were primarily organisers and only secondarily interested in philosophic speculation. Indeed neither were intellectuals in the conventional sense of the term – that is erudite and sophisticated men with academic qualifications and long lists of books to their credit. Neither wrote systematic treaties on morals and politics, nor was either a philosopher, in the sense that they were not particularly interested in abstract theoretical formulations. Gandhi, for example, told a scholar researching the concept of *Satyagraha*: “but satyagraha is not a subject of research – you must experience it, use it, live by it” (Joan Bandurant, Conquest of Violence – Pg 146). I suspect similar anecdotes could be repeated of Upadhayaya.

Both men were charismatic figures, though Gandhi had the larger impact, in part because so many considered him a saintly figure, if not a saint. His asceticism convinced many that he was able to realize ideals which many held, but which few could realize. (See study in Lloyd and Susanne Rudolph, Modernity of Tradition, pt. 2). Gandhi transformed the Indian National Congress from a rather staid debating forum of the anglicized upper class into a rationalized organization that encompassed a wide range of activities that touched on the lives of the masses. His organizational skills, combined with his charismatic appeal as a Mahatma, transformed the Congress into the effective action arm of the independence movement.
Upadhayaya also possessed the characteristic of the saintly. He gave up the calling of a profession and a family to dedicate himself to the Motherland. His life was Spartan and his adherence to moral standards was of an unusually high order. These traits brought him the respect, if nor devotion, of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) Swayamsevaks in the United Provinces where he served as a Pracharak (full time worker) from 1942-51, the latter few years as assistant state organizer of the RSS in the now-renamed Uttar Pradesh. He has a similar effect on the cadre of the Jan Sangh where he was one of the two All-India Secretaries after the formation of the party in 1951 and from 1952-67 the All-India Secretary, Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, president of the newly founded party for a few years before his untimely death., commented that were he to have several more men like Upadhyaya he could transform India. Upadhyaya certainly transformed the Jan Sangh. He took over the management of the party at the death of Dr. Mukherjee in mid-1953 at a time when many questioned whether it could survive without a towering figure such as Mukherjee to lead it. There was strife in the small party over control of the executive and confusion over its program. He instilled discipline, broadened participation, recruited a dedicated cadre and shaped its program to espouse the interests of those with little money, power or status. While there were a few minor defections during his life, the Jan Sangh was the one major India party which suffered no significant fissure. That is a testimony to the cohesive organization that he mulled.

Yet, it must be recognized that he was never a mahatma, nor is there any indication that he aspired to such a status. Indeed, he even tried to avoid public attention. From both his writings and talking with people who knew him, I get the image of a man who felt uncomfortable in the limelight, who believed that the organization and its goals were incomparably more important than personal recognition.

So self-effacing was he that, for example, he often would not sign articles that he wrote for Panchajanya, a journal which he edited from Lucknow in the late 1940’s. Consistent with the RSS tradition from which he came, he viewed personal publicity as a detriment to the cause – and the cause was organizing Indians to overcome the internal divisions that, he felt, had historically exposed the country to outside subversion and that has undermined the willing ness to make the sacrifices necessary for economic and cultural revival.

Unlike Gandhi, Upadhyaya was not a religious man in conventional sense of the term. While he was stepped in the Hindu traditions, particularly Vedant, he was not a wordly sadhu and he was not moved to act by religious precepts. However, like Gandhi, he rejected post-Machiavellian trend of western thought that posited the separation of religious and political ideals. In their attempt to fuse the two concepts, Gandhi and Upadhyaya drew on the traditional Hindu concept of Karma Yoga, or spiritual realization through social work. Both accepted the traditional notion that Dharma (individual and social duty) is the legitimate guide for shaping Artha (interest) and Karma (pleasure).

Yet, their approach to the determination of dharma was quite different. Gandhi stressed the individual’s quest of satya (truth) to inform him of the ethical rules that govern man’s behavior. This approach stands out in his oft-quoted assertion that “I would reject all authority if it is in conflict with sober reason or the dictates of the heart. Authority sustains and ennobles the weak when it supplants reason (that is) sanctioned by the small voice within”. Gandhi’s focus on individual effort has led some to conclude that he was a moral anarchist, if not also a social anarchist. For example, he wrote in Young India (March 1931), “there is no freedom for India so long as one man, no matter how highly placed he may be, holds in the hollow of his hands the life, property and honor of millions of human beings. It is artificial, unnatural and uncivilized institution”. Gandhi of course, was not an anarchist in either sense, for he also accepted the Vedantist notion that there is an underlying truth potentially open to all. Moreover, he had a respect for traditional institutions such as the Panchayata and the varna system, both of which specified special social duties and responsibilities.

Upadhyaya on the other hand, emphasized the collective wisdom of the nation as the authoritative voice of Dharma. However, he was also apprehensive that the majority might not always properly understand the laws of Dharma. “But even the people are not sovereign because people too have no right to act against Dharma” (Integral Humanism, page -56). Furthermore, “the truth cannot be decided by the majority; what the government will do will be decided by Dharma (Ibid – page -58). He does not define who the legitimate interpreter of dharma is. It is not unreasonable to conclude from his writings that he thought democracy the system most likely to approximate dharma since it provides an opportunity to detached men dedicated to national well-being to shape and correct public opinion.
The centrality of the nation in his thought rests on notion that it has a soul (i.e, “chiti”), shaped by experiences within a given geographical space and motivated by an over-arching ideal ( Integral Humanism – page 36-37). In describing the nation, he often drew on the metaphor of an organism, in particular the human body, in which each part has its true reality only in the particular function it fulfills within the whole.

“A system based on the recognition of this mutually complementary nature of the different ideals of mankind, their essential harmony, a system which devises laws which removes the disharmony and enhances their mutual usefulness and cooperation, alone can being peace and happiness to mankind; can ensure steady development” (Integral Humanism – page 39). Indeed, it is this organic concept of the nation that, it his view, has been the ideal that kept alive the Indian nation through the vicissitudes of time. It is its unique contribution to political philosophy. His major philosophic argument against the ruling political elite of his time was his conviction that they advocated western notions of society and, in the process, undermined the integral unity that has sustained Bharatiya civilization.

He was far less committed to traditional institutions than Gandhi. His writings are sprinkled with attacks on the caste system, as practiced. In his view, all institutions are derivative and, when they cease to fulfill the integrating function, they should be revised or abandoned. It is not surprising that orthodox Hindus were among the major critics of the Jan Sangh.

Gandhi’s political object was Swaraj (self-rule). But he interpreted Swaraj as more than mere independence from the British; it carried the meaning of an all-embracing self-sufficiency down to the village level. Self-sufficiency translated into a concrete program of action that led him to espouse Swadeshi (self-reliance) and the central effort during the years of the nationalist struggle for Swaraj lay in the propagation of Khadi (hand-spun cloth). Swadeshi served not only an economic function in actual supply of cloth; it also carried significant ideological implications. It was the central piece of his elaborate constructive work program. It was the symbolic representative of his effort against centralized industry and urbanization which he thought degraded the worker. (These products of modernization were attacked vigorously in his tract – Hind Swaraj, written in 1909). His condemnation of western materialism led him inevitably to support the concept of self-governing village communities and a simple low-technology system of production.

Upadhyaya’s writings demonstrate a comparable outrage against the effects of westen models of development. In a series of lectures in Poona in 1964 on Integral Humanism, later adopted as the official ideological statement of the Jan Sangh, he lashed out at both Socialism and Capitalism. “Democracy and Capitalism join hands to give a free reign to exploitation. Socialism replaced Capitalism and brought with it an end to democracy and individual freedom” (Integral Humanism – page 10). In their place, he proposes a model that takes into consideration all aspects of the human condition, “body, mind, intelligence and soul – these four make up an individual”. (Ibid – page 24). In practical terms,, the notion translated into a decentralized economy and political system in which citizens have a meaningful voice in the production process and in their own governance. This populist conception assumes a leveling in both economic and political power. Marked differences in access to power or economic resources would undermine the harmony he believed to be the essential cement of the good society.

Upadhayaya was not, however, adverse to the selective adoption of science, technology or even urbanization. (Ibid –page 8). He thought that they should be adapted to local conditions to improve the economic well-being of the population. Societies must produce enough to feed, cloth, house, educate and employ those within it. To do less would result in misery and strife, thus disrupting the harmony necessary for well-being of the collective. At the same time, however, he felt that consumption should not degenerate into consumerism (Ibid – page 65). “From this point of view, it must be realized that the object of our economic system should be, not extravagant use of available resources, but a well regulated use. The physical objects necessary for a purposeful happy and progressive life must be obtained. The Almighty has provided as much. It will not be wise, however, to engage into a blind rat-race of consumption and production as if man is created for the sole purpose of consumption.”

Finally, both (Gandhi and Deendayal) were suspicious of political power and its corrupting effect on public figures. Neither held a political office and neither aspired to do so. (Upadhyaya once ran, unsuccessfully, for parliamentary, but I strongly suspect that he did so with no great enthusiasm). Gandhi a few months after India attained independence told his closest colleagues, “By adjuring power and by devoting ourselves to pure and selfless service of voters, we can guide and influence them. It would give us far more real power than we shall have by going into government… Today politics has become corrupt. Anybody who goes into it is contaminated. Let us keep out of it altogether. Our influence will grow thereby.” (D.G. Tendulkar, Mahatma, Volume-8-pages 278-80). His advise, of course, was rejected by most of his Congress colleagues. Ironically, Upadhyaya, the leader of a political party, would probably have subscribed to his view of politics. He wrote, “Today politics ceased to be a means. It has become an end in itself. We have today people who are engaged in power with a view to achieving certain social and national objectives” (Political Dairy – page 115). Nevertheless, he thought it important, if not crucial, for the detached man of good will to remain in the political arena to help shape public opinion in the path of “Truth” (or Dharma). Consequently, he placed great stress on recruiting to politics men of high moral rectitude.

Despite the many differences between the two men, both came to the conclusion that it is the quality of men in society who will ultimately determine the nature of the state. This is at variance with most contemporary western political though (both speculative and empirical) which argues that conflicting interests are the major forces that shape the state and its policies. Whatever the merits of Gandhi’s and Upadhyaya’s views on the issue, their intense interests in the types of people who worked around them were of fundamental importance in their successful organization-building efforts.

Integral Humanism – Lectures of Deendayal Upadhyaya – 4

Lecture #1: https://arisebharat.wordpress.com/?p=5281

Lecture #2: https://arisebharat.wordpress.com/?p=5290

Lecture #3: https://arisebharat.wordpress.com/?p=5294

24th April 1965

C H A P T E R- 4

Yesterday we had discussed the functions of State in a Nation. According to the Bharatiya traditions, a nation is an organic living entity which has come into existence on its own and has not been made up or created by any group of persons. A nation brings forth a variety of institutions to fulfill its needs, as well as to give concrete shape to its inner fundamental nature. The State is one of these institutions which though being an important institution, is not supreme. In our literature where the duties of a king are referred to, his importance is definitely recognized. This is so, perhaps, to make him realize his immense responsibility. He exercised tremendous influence on the lives and character of the people. Hence he had to give due attention to his own behavior. Bhishma has said the same thing, in Mahabharat when he was asked whether circumstances make a king or a king makes the circumstances. He categorically stated that the king shapes the circumstances. Now some persons interpret this to mean that the considered the king above all. But this is not true. He did not suggest that the king was above Dharma. It is true that the king wielded a great deal of influence and that he was the protector of Dharma in society, but the king could not decide what constitutes Dharma. He only saw to it that people led their lives according to Dharma. In a way he was equivalent to present day executive.

In the present State, the executive has the responsibility to execute the laws properly, but does not enact laws. When the executive does not function with honesty and efficiency, the laws are entirely disregarded, as we see very well around us. We can well say today “Executive is responsible for the present evils to a great extent.” After all why has prohibition failed? Who is responsible for the failure?? When those very persons who have been entrusted with the task of implementing prohibition. Start taking monthly allowances from the bootleggers, how is the prohibition policy to succeed? The executive is, therefore, responsible for the proper enforcement of law. This is the meaning of Bhishma’s statement. It would be a mistake to interpret it as acceptance of approved supremacy of a monthly allowances from the bootleggers, how is the prohibition policy to succeed? The executive is therefore, responsible for the proper enforcement of law. This is the meaning of Bhisma statement. It would be a mistake to interpret it as acceptance of approved supremacy of a king. If this were so, how was it that the tyrant king Venu was removed by the Rishis and Prithu was enthroned?

This action by the Rishis was never condemned by any one in history. On the contrary it was hailed by everyone. When the supremacy of Dharma is accepted as a principle, then, though the authority of Dharma, the Rishis derive a right to remove a king who defaults in his duty. Otherwise, it would have been absolutely illegal to remove a king from his throne. Thus if a King does not act according to Dharma, it becomes the duty of everyone to remove him. In Western countries, either a King was removed by some other king or people rejected the sovereignty of king altogether. There king was a representative of God and could under no circumstances be removed at least in principle.

In our socio-political set-up, the king and the State were never considered supreme. Not only that, there were other important institutions, (besides the State, which was only one of them) to regulate and to help carry on the social life. Those institutions had been organized both on horizontal and vertical level, i.e. on original and occupation basis. We have evolved Panchayats and Janapada Sabhas. The mightiest of the king did not ever disturb the Panchayats. Similarly there were associations on the basis of trade. These two were never disturbed by the State; on the contrary their autonomy was recognized. They devised their own rules and regulations in their fields. The Panchayats of different communities, shrines, nigams, Village Panchayats, Janapada Sabhas and such other Organization used to set- up regulations. The function of the state was mostly to see that these rules are observed by the persons concerned. The State never interfered with the affairs of these associations. Thus the State was concerned only with some aspects of life of the Society.

Similarly, in the economic field many institutions are created. We have to think what should be the nature of our economic structure. We must have such an economic system which helps in the developments of our humane qualities, or civilization and enables us to attain a still higher level of all round perfection. We should have a system which does not overwhelm our humane quality; which does not make us slaves of its own grinding wheels. According to our concept, man attains God like perfection as a result of development. What structure, what regulation should be specified in our economic system if we wish to achieve this goal? Let us, consider this point.

Economic system must achieve the production of all the basic things essential for the maintenance and development of people as well as the protection and development of the Nation. Having satisfied the basic minimum requirements, the question naturally arises, whether there should be more production for greater property and happiness. The Western societies consider it most essential and even desirable to go on continuously and systematically increasing the desires and needs of man. There is no upper limit in the context. Normally desire precedes the efforts at producing the things desired. But now the position is reverse. People are induced to desire and use the things that have been and are being produced. Instead of producing to meet the demand, the search is on the markets for the goods already produced; if the demand does not exist, systematic efforts are made to create demand. This has become the chief characteristic of the western economic movement. Earlier, production followed the demand, now demand allows the production. Consider the use of tea for example. Tea was produced because people desired and wanted it. But Tea was produced and we were induced to develop taste for tea. Now tea is a common man’s drink. It has become a part of our life. Similar is the case of vegetable ghee. Did anyone ever want to use it? It was first produced and then we were taught to use it. If whatever is manufactured is not consumed, there will be depression. Some of us many remember the great depression of 1930-32. There was abundance of goods at that time but there was no demand. Therefore factories had to be closed down.

Bankruptcy and unemployment were widespread. Thus now-a-days it is most important that what is being produced must be consumed. The Editor of “Organiser”, an English Weekly, had gone to USA for a visit sometime ago. Upon his return, he related an interested instance. There is a factory producing “Potato-peelers”, a device for peeling potatoes. The production of this factory outstripped the demand for the device. The management of the firm faced the problem of finding some way by which people may be induced to buy more potato peelers. They called a meeting of all the salesmen of the firm. Among the suggestions put forward, one was to make the color of the handle similar to that of potato peel. so that along with the peel. the peeler may also be dumped in the garbage, often by mistake. Thus there may be greater demand. Also, the product was offered in a more attractive packing. Now this economic structure is not merely consumption oriented but is clearly leading to destruction. Throw away the old one and buy a new one! Rather than satisfying the need and demand from people. to create fresh demand has become the aim of modern economics.

Supposing that we need not worry about the limited supply of natural resources, there is yet the question of balance in Nature. There is a relationship in different parts of Nature. If from the three sticks standing with mutual support, one is removed, the other two will automatically fall. The present economic system and system of production are fast disturbing this equilibrium of nature. As a result on the one hand new products are manufactured for satisfying ever increasing desires, on the other hand new problem arise every day, threatening the very existence of the entire humanity and civilization. It is essential, therefore, to use up that portion of the available natural resources which the nature will be able to recoup easily. When the fruits are taken, the fruit tree is not injured: it may even be helpful to the tree. However, in the effort to take a greater harvest from the land chemical fertilizers are used which in a few years time render the land altogether infertile. Lakhs of acres of land lie barren in America due to this factor. How long this dance of destruction can go on?

The destruction provides for depreciation fund to replace the machines when worn out. Then how can we neglect the depreciation fund for nature. From this point of view, it must be realized that the object of our economic system should be, not extravagant use of available resources, but a well regulated use. The physical objects necessary for a purposeful, happy and progressive life must be obtained. The Almighty has provided as much. It will not be wise, however, to engage into a blind rat-race of consumption and production as if man is created for the sole purpose of consumption. Engine needs coal for its proper working, but it has not been produced merely to consume coal. On the contrary it is only proper always to see that with the minimum coal consumption, maximum energy is produced. This is the economic view point. Keeping in view the aim of human life, we must endeavor to see how with the minimum of fuel, man proceeds to his goal with the maximum speed. Such a system alone can be called civilization. This system will not think of merely a single aspect of human life but of all its aspects including the ultimate aim. This system will not thrive on the exploitation of nature but will sustain nature and will in turn itself be nourished. Milking rather than exploitation should be our aim. The system should be such that overflow from nature is used to sustain our lives.

If such human angle inspires the economic system than our thinking on the economic question will undergo through transformation. In the Western economics, whether it is capitalist or socialist, value has the most important and central position. All economic theories centre around value. It may be that the analysis of value is very important from the point of view of the economist but, those social philosophers which are based entirely on value are for incomplete, inhuman and to some extent unethical take. For example, the slogan commonly heard now-a-days “one must earn his bread”. Normally communists use this slogan but even the capitalists are not fundamentally in disagreement with it. If there is any difference between them, it is only as regards who earns and how much. The capitalists consider capital and enterprise as important components of production and hence if they take a major share of profits, they think it is their due. On the other hand, communists believe only labor to be the main factor in production. Therefore they concede major share of production to the laborers. Neither of these ideas is correct. Really speaking, our slogan should be that the one who earns will feed and every person will have enough to eat.. The right to food is a birthright. The ability to earn is a result of education and training. In a society even those who do not earn must have food. The children and the old, the diseased and the invalids, all must be eared for by the society. Even society generally fulfills this responsibility.

The social and cultural progress of mankind ties in the readiness to fulfill this responsibility. The economic system must provide for this task. Economics as a science does not account for this responsibility. A man works not merely for bread alone, but also to shoulder this responsibility. Otherwise those who have had their meals would no longer work. Any economic system must provide for the minimum basic necessities of human life to everyone. Food, clothing and shelter constitute, broadly speaking these basic necessities. Similarly, the society must enable the individual to carry out his obligations to the society by properly educating him. Lastly, in the event of an individual falling a prey to any disease society must arrange for his treatment and maintenance. If a government provides these minimum requirements, then only it is a rule of Dharma. Otherwise, it is a rule of Adharma. Describing the King Dilip, Kalidas has said in Raghuvansha “Being responsible for the maintenance, protection and education of his subjects, he was their true farther. Others were merely instrumental in giving them their birth”. The description of king Bharat after whom our country has been named Bharat, also runs similarly, i.e. “by maintaining and protecting his subjects he was called Bharat.” This is his country, Bharat, if in this country maintenance and protection are not guaranteed, and then the name Bharat is meaningless.

Education – A Social Responsibility

To educate a child is in the interest of the Society itself. By birth a child is an animal. He becomes a responsible member of the society only by education and culture. To charge fees for something which is in the interest of the society itself a rather odd. If due to the inability to pay the fees, children are left without education, will the society endure the situation for long? We do not charge fee from trees for sowing the seed and caring for the supplying. On the contrary we invest our money and efforts. We know that when the tree grows, we shall reap fruits.

Education is a similar investment. An educated individual will indeed serve the society. On the other hand it will not be surprising if people grow indifferent to the society, which leave them to fend for themselves. Before 1947, in all the princely states In India, no fees were charged for education. The highest education was free. In the Gurukulas, even food and lodging were arranged without any charge. The student used to go to the society for “Bhiksha”. No householder would refuse the Bhiksha to the student. In other words, society used to bear the burden of education. Similarly, it is rather surprising that medical treatment must be paid for. In fact, medical treatment also should be free as it was in this country in the past. Now-a-days one has to pay even to gain entrance to a temple. In Tirupathi, to enter the Balaji temple, there is a charge of 0.25 paise. However, at noon for one hour, there is Dharma Darshan, which means, during that time, no ticket is needed, as if at other times there is Adharma Darshan. The society should guarantee to all members minimum requirements for maintenance and progress of every individual. Now the question arises that if everyone is to be guaranteed the minimum necessities, where will the resources for all this come from?

Guarantee of Work

It is clear that the resources must be produced by our own efforts. Therefore, where a right to a guaranteed minimum is recognized, any individual who does not share in the efforts to produce is a burden to the society. Similarly any system which obstructs the production activity of the people is self destructive. Such a system will not enable the individuals to fulfill their responsibility. Not only that, but even if the requirements of an individual are met, while he does not share in the efforts, his personality will not develop fully, his progress as a human being will be distorted and lop-sided. Man has stomach as well is hands. If he has no work for his hands, he will not get happiness even if he gets food to satisfy his hunger. His progress will be obstructed. Just as a barren woman experiences emptiness in life and consequent dissatisfaction, so does a man without work. The guarantee of work to every able bodied member of the society, should be the aim of our economic system. Today we witness a very strange situation. On the one hand, a ten-year-old child and seventy-year-old man are toiling and on the other hand youth of twenty five is driven to suicide for want of work. We shall have to remove this mismanagement. God has given hands to every man but by themselves hands have a limited capacity to produce. They need assistance of capital in the form of machines.

Labor and capital bear the same relation to each other as that between man and nature. The world is a creation of these two. Neither of them can be neglected.

Capital Formation

For capital formation it is essential that a part of production be saved from immediate consumption and be used for further production, in future. Thus capital can be formed only by restraint on consumption. This is the basis of capital formation to which Karl Marx refers to as “surplus value” in his treatise. In the capitalist system the industrialist creates capital with the help of this surplus value. In a socialist system, the state undertakes this task. In both the systems, the entire production is not distributed among the workers. If production is carried on through centralized large-scale industries, the sacrifice on the part of the worker in creating the capital is not given due recognition. The advantage in decentralization is in the fact that the workers have a sense of direct participation in the management of this surplus value or capital. Machine is the most common form of capital. Machine was created in order to reduce the content of physical labor in production and to increase the productivity of the worker. Machine, therefore, is an assistant of the worker and not his competitor. However, where the human labor came to be considered as a commodity to be purchased with money, the machine became the competitor of the human being. The principal drawback of the capitalist view point in the fact that by making the machine a competitor of human labor and thereby displacing and competitor of human labor and thereby displacing and subjecting human being to privations the very purpose of creating machine has been defied. Machine cannot be blamed for this. It is the fault of the economic and social system which cannot distinguish between the object and the instrument. We shall have to take into account the limitations on usefulness of machines and decide on its field of application. From this point of view to import the machinery from Western countries, where shortage of manpower was the guiding factor in the design of machines would be a serious mistake.

The merits of machine are, not independent of time and place. Machines are a product of the modern science but not its representatives. Scientific knowledge is not a monopoly of any particular country. But its application has to take into account the particular condition of each country and its requirements. Our machines must not only, by tailored for our specific economic means, but also must, at least, avoid conflict with our socio-political and cultural objectives, if not support them. Professor Vishvesaraya has said in one of his books, that while considering the system of production one must take into account the seven ‘M’s. These are man, material, money, management, motive power, market and machine. The skill and ability of the workers or those who should be provided with work must be considered. Easy availability of the required raw material and the quality and properties of the raw materials available cannot be ignored. We must also think of how much money is available as capital. How this capital can be increased and at what rate? How best it can be utilized for maximum production? How much of it should be put in the fixed assets and how much should be kept in the liquid form? We must also pay attention to the form of power available in the country in addition to the human and animal labor.

Wind, water, steam oil, gas, electricity and atomic power can supply the motive power. Of these, which form of power can be obtained in what quantity and without being uneconomic must be thought of while deciding upon our methods of production. In the same way managerial skills are also important and deserve the attention. If the ability to co-ordinate the efforts of a dozen workers are wanting, all of them will remain unemployed. It is also necessary to think of the usefulness of the goods produced to the society. This means that production of any particular commodity cannot be justified economically without the consideration of the market it commands. Taking into consideration all these factors we should design suitable machines. Instead, we find now-a-days that we install the machines first and try to coordinate all other factors afterwards. Other countries of the world did not progress in this fashion. Otherwise new machines would not have been invested. We are importing the machines and hence, we have little knowledge. We shall have to develop a Bharatiya technology.

None of the seven factors is unchangeable. In fact each one keeps constantly changing. Those who are entrusted with the task of planning must think of how the change is directed towards progress, how physical hardship is reduced, and waste of energy is minimized. As an illustration let us take the low productivity of our worker. It can be increased by using machines, and it is necessary to do so. But if the machine is such that requires only a few men to run it, then the rest of the people will be thrown out of employment. If the machine has to be imported from other countries at such a heavy cost that the additional production it causes will be insufficient to make it economic, then such a machine is not suitable to our requirements. Just as to let a part of the installed capacity of a factory remain unutilised is a losing proposition, so also to let the people of this country remain unemployed is a losing proposition. May, this is even worse.

Whereas a machine ties up only the capital invested in it in past, the unemployed people have to be fed, which is continuous and unending drain on resources, consumed at double the speed. Therefore instead of the usual exhortation “Every worker must get food”, we must think of “Everyone who eats must get work”, as the basis of our economy. No doubt charakha has to be replaced by machines but not necessarily automatic machines everywhere. Full employment must be a primary consideration and then the rest of the six factors suit this.

Man’s Place In The Economy

The use of manpower and the employment question will have to be thought of in the context of the human being as a whole, as an integral being. The economic theories of the past few centuries and the structure of society based on these theories, have resulted in a thorough devaluation of the human being. His personality is altogether irrelevant to the economic set up. Capitalist economy recognizes only an “economic man”, whose all decisions are based entirely on calculations of gain and loss, in terms of material wealth. For this economic man, five rupees are always more than four rupees. He works solely to gain more wealth, and execs to get the maximum gain. For him, just like other commodities, human labor is a commodity to be bought and sold in the market. This is free enterprise. It holds all other restriction and regulations unjust, save the brake of competition. In the race no one is prepared to stop and give a helping land to the weak, who is left behind; elimination of the weak is considered just and natural.

He is uneconomic, marginal unit, not fit to exist. This is what it advocates. By the elimination of such marginal units, the economic power accumulates in the hands of a few. This is considered normal and natural is capitalist system. But when monopoly is a established, even the check of competition ceases to operates. In such a. situation the incentive resulting from competition is no longer available. Prices are arbitrarily fixed and quality of products deteriorates. Even as regards the consumer’s needs, the capitalist is guided not by the necessities and desires of the consumer, but by his purchasing power. The needs of the wealthy and the well fed are attended to rather than those of the poor and the hungry. As a result where countless varieties of goods are produced for he needs of the wealthy, even the basic necessities of life for the poor become scarce. The centralization and monopolization of reduction totally undermine the influence of the consumer. The markets are so organized that the consumer has to go by standard products. This standardization is on the increase at such a pace that individual preference of the consumer is ignored. Like the books in the library, even human beings are allotted numbers as consumers. The system which boasts of giving highest importance to the individual has ironically destroyed all individuality. Clearly, the capitalist system is incapable of helping the development of an integral human being.

Socialist System Is A Reaction

Socialism arose as a reason to capitalism. But even socialism failed to establish the importance of the human being. Socialists contented themselves by merely transferring the ownership of capital in the hands of the State. But the State is even more of an impersonal institution. All the business of the State is conducted by rigid rules and regulations. Generally, there is no place for individual discretion and even where such discretion is allowed, the slightest laxity in the sense of duty and social responsibility on the part of the administrators’ results in corruption and favoritism. The capitalistic system thought merely of the economic man, but left him free in other fields where they could exercise his individuality. The socialist system went much further thinking only of the abstract man. After that, there was no scope for the development of the individual personality based on diverse tastes and abilities. The needs and preferences of individuals have as much importance in the socialist system as in a prison manual. There is no such thing as individual freedom in the socialist system

State’s Claims on Individual

There is no private property in a socialist society. This removes the problems attendants to the institution of private property. However., the incentive for production and conservation of resources and economy in utilization accompany the institution of private property. There has been no alternative arrangement to preserve these. The State is made supreme and sole authority in all matters. Individual citizen is reduced to mere cog in this giant wheel. There are no provisions to inspire the individual to fulfill his role. As Djilas states, the class of old fashioned exploiters has been eliminated, but a new class of bureaucratic exploiter has come into existence. Karl Marx put forward, in his analysis of history, that capitalism contains the seeds of its own destruction and that communism is a natural and inevitable successor to capitalism.

This concept may be helpful in fostering faith in the communist about their ultimate victory but certainly such a determinist view destroys the urge for reforms and dynamism in man. He is no longer the creator of a new order; he is merely incidental to a predetermined historic process. His task is only to accelerate the process. Therefore, even as he tries to organize workers, he cares little for their welfare, but uses them as mere tools for the revolution. The dialectic materialism of Marx, too, operates only so long as state is note established as supreme after destroying the capitalists. Thereafter, the state puts a stop to the operation of the principle of dialectic materialism. In the name of crushing and counter revolutionaries, the state becomes more and more totalitarian. The day when the state is to wither away yielding place to a stateless society remains a mere dream. In fact according to the Marxist view, to obstruct the process of these antitheses, is itself reactionary. Marx is thus falsified by his own standards. Both these systems – Capitalist as well as Communist, have failed to take account of the Integral Man, his true and complete personality and his aspirations. One considers him a mere selfish being lingering after money, having only one law, the law of fierce competition, in essence the law of the jungle; whereas the other has viewed him as a feeble lifeless cog in the whole scheme of things, regulated by rigid rules, and incapable of any good unless directed. The centralization of power, economic and political, is implied in both. Both, therefore, result in dehumanization of man. Man, the highest creation of God. is losing his own identity. We must re-establish him in his rightful position, being him the realization of his greatness, reawaken his abilities and encourage him to exert for attaining divine heights of his latest personality. This is possible only through a decentralized economy. We want neither capitalism nor socialism. We aim at the progress and happiness of “Man”, the Integral Man. The protagonists of the two systems fight with ‘Man’ on the state. Both of them do not understand man, nor do they care for his interests.

Our Economic System

The Objectives of our Economy should be

  1. An assurance of minimum standard of living to every individual and preparedness for the defense of the nation.
  2. Further increase above this minimum standard of living whereby the individual and the nation acquires the means to contribute to the world progress on the basis of its own ‘Chiti’.
  3. To provide meanings employment to every able bodies citizens by which the above two objectives can be realized and to avoid waste and extravagance in utilizing natural resources.
  4. To develop suitable machines for Bharatiya conditions (Bharatiya Technology) taking note of the availability and nature of the various factors of production (Seven ‘M’s).
  5. This system must help and not disregard the human being, the individual. It must protect the cultural and other values of life. This is requirement which cannot be violated except at a risk of great peril.
  6. The ownership, state, private or any other form of various industries must be decided on a pragmatic and practical basis.

These are a few general directions which we must bear in mind while developing our economy. “Swadeshi” and “Decentralization” are the two words which can briefly summarize the economic policy suitable for the present circumstances. Centralization and monopolization have been the order of the day for all these years, knowingly or unknowingly. The planners have become prisoners of a belief that only large-scale centralized industry is economic and hence without worrying about its ill-effects, or knowingly but helplessly, they have continued in that direction. The same has been the fate of “Swadeshi”. The concept of “Swadeshi” is ridiculed as old fashioned and reactionary. We proudly use foreign articles. We have grown over independent upon foreign aid in everything from thinking, management, capital, methods of production, technology, etc. to even the standards and forms of consumption. This is not the road to progress and development. We shall forget our individuality and become virtual slaves once again. The positive content of “Swadeshi” should be used as the cornerstone of reconstruction of our economy.

For want of time, I have not touched the natural aspects of economic structure. But one thing is clear that many old institutions will yield place to new ones. This will adversely affect those who have vested interests in the old institutions. Some others who are by nature averse to change will also suffer by efforts of reconstruction. But disease must be treated with medicine. Strength can be gained only from exercise and hard work. Therefore, we still have to discard the status-quo mentality and usher in a new era. Indeed our efforts at reconstruction need not be clouded by prejudice or disregard for all that is inherited from our past. On the other hand, there is no need to cling to past institutions and traditions which have outlived their utility. We have considered what the direction of change should be. We have in the last four days thought over the integrated from of Humanism. On the basis we shall be able to reconcile nationalism, democracy, socialism and world peace with the traditional values of Bharatiya Culture and think of all these ideals in an integrated form. The mutual conflict among these ideals can be removed and they can supplement mutually. Thereby the “Man can gain his lost status and attain the aims of his life”.

We have here discussed the philosophy. But the members of the Bharatiya Jana Sangh are not mere philosophers or academicians. We have set out with the determination to make this nation strong, happy and prosperous through the medium of the Bharatiya Jana Sangh. Therefore, we must carry on practical programs for the nationalist reconstruction on this foundation. We have taken due note of our ancient culture. But we are no archeologists. We have to intention of becoming the custodians of a vast archeological museum. Our goal is not merely to protect the culture but to revitalize it so as to make it dynamic and in tune with the times. We must ensure that our nation stands firm on this foundation and our society is enabled to live a healthy, progressive and purposeful life. We shall have to end a number of traditions and set in reforms which are helpful in the development of values and of national unity in our society. We shall remove those traditions which obstruct this process. Whereas one need not mourn the limitations of the human body, one must undergo the required social operation if any part of the body has cancerous growth. There is no need to to amputee healthy limbs. If today, the society is gripped with evils like untouchability which lead men to treat other human beings as lower than themselves and thereby threaten the national unity, we shall have to end s such evils.

We shall be required to produce such institutions as will kindle the spirit of action in us, which will replace the self-centeredness and selfishness by a desire to serve the nation, which will produce not only sympathy towards our brethren, but a sense of affection and oneness with them. Such institutions can truly reflect our ‘Chiti’. ‘Chiti’ is a nation’s soul. The strength and energy activating the nation is called “Virat” and channeled by ‘Chiti’. The place of ‘Virat” in the life of nation is similar to that of Prana in the body. Just as ‘Prana’ infuses strength in various organs of the body, refreshed the intellect and keeps body and soul together; so also in a nation, with a strong ‘Virat’ alone can democracy succeed and the government be effective. Then the diversity of our nation does not prove an obstacle to our national unity. The difference of languages, occupations, etc. are present everywhere. However, when the ‘Virat’ is awake, diversity does not lead to conflicts and people co-operates with each other like the various limbs of the human body or like the members of a family.

We have to undertake the task of awakening our nation’s ‘Virat’. Let us go forward in this task with a sense of pride for our heritage, with a realistic assessment of the present and a great ambition for the future. We wish neither to make this country a shadow of some distant past nor an imitation of Russia or America. With the support of Universal knowledge and our heritage, we shall create a Bharat which will excel all its past glories, and will enable every citizen in its fold to steadily progress in the development of his manifold latent possibilities and to achieve through a sense of unity with the entire creation, a state even higher than that of a complete human being; to become Narayan from ‘Nar’. This is the external divine from of our culture. This is our message to humanity to cross roads. May God give us strength to succeed in this task.

BHARAT MATA KI JAI

25th April 1965

(Source: http://deendayalupadhyay.org/speeches.html)

Lecture #1: https://arisebharat.wordpress.com/?p=5281

Lecture #2: https://arisebharat.wordpress.com/?p=5290

Lecture #3: https://arisebharat.wordpress.com/?p=5294