This is a reaction from a reader of this blog, Dr. Nagendra Rao. He has expressed his views and wanted them to be posted here. In the interest of fairness and equity, I am pasting his writing here, as it is. I would like to inform all that this is not to start an argument on anything. On that I am very clear. Thank you.
Dr. Nagendra Rao writes:
Satish! So far I am following your blog passively without expressing my views. But I am reading seriously your posts almost immediately after you post them. The reason for not intervened so far is that I agree mostly with whatever you are writing. Only once I felt that I should intervene in the debate. It is nothing to do with what you have written but your reaction to some of the comments. But I resisted because a) I felt I may be taking too much liberty b) the persons who posted the comments are having knowledge and authority on the subject, otherwise you would not have responded that way. But no more I can resist after reading your reaction to some of the comments.
Satish, let me be honest. I felt you don’t have to change your positions or apologetic about what you have written so far. We see the point in argument but I surprised you agree with them in Toto, expressed willingness to change your position. Your reactions are very extreme, which in my understanding not required.
First time I felt this way after reading your reaction to Mr. Promod’s comments on judiciary. I am quite away from the scene in Andhra Pradesh, I haven’t read in newspaper what the High Court judge actually said. But I am quoting here what you actually said: ... but does one member of the judiciary respond to the work of another member this way? In a climate where tempers are high and everything is volatile would such remarks not exacerbate the situation? Why cannot we wait for the report to be made public officially and then comment rather than providing sneak previews like this? It should also be remembered that the Government of India has the right to challenge his decision and if a verdict emerges in a higher court that it is better that it be kept a secret, then what? I am not defending the Governor, or Justice Sri Krishna but only raising questions of propriety of behaviour of people in responsible positions in offices of repute. I am not going to bring what the judge actually said about the report - whether it can be bettered by front office of the MP or the report is full of lies. It has to be proved empirically. We all have agreements and disagreements about the content of the report (may be some other occasion I will talk about where I can disagree). But let me limit on this occasion to your reactions. I disagree with all the comments made by Mr. Promod, but one. Firstly, I disagree with a narrow juristic position he has taken. I will not give value to the position from which the comments are coming from, whether retired judge or sitting judge or ordinary citizen. I give value to the strength of the comments. The strength comes from the notion of justice and public good. Our viewpoint will depend on what we consider as justice or public good. We as academicians have every right to differ with judgements delivered by the courts or Justices, more right to differ with the comments made by the Justices when they are delivering judgements. If some one says that I should not do that means he is asking me not to differ with some of the court judgements which have gone against the agitating workers, against protests or agitations or the very human rights you and me. Should I accept the verdict delivered on Bhopal gas victims (fixing compensation)? Should I accept verdict on Binayak Sen? There are hundreds of judgements with which we differ. With regard to the comments passed by the judges, I will cite one classic incident. Justice B.N. Sharma who delivered a dissenting and separate judgement stated that: “the disputed site was indeed the birthplace of Lord Ram the mosque was built by Mughal emperor Babar against the tenets of Islam. “Thus, it cannot have the character of a mosque”. I felt it is really funny. So should I accept such a atrocious comments? Similarly, I have my own reservations about Godra judgement as well. If we can’t speak about these things who else Satish? I agree that many times the judges of the lower courts delivered most radical verdict under severe pressure and we have to be thankful to them for whatever rights we are enjoying. I also agree with Mr. Promod that a judge at lower court should not express what he believes because the verdict can be reviewed by the higher courts. At the same we have every right to differ with what goes against the values we cherish or how much justice is there in the verdict. Even when I differ with the judgement or comments of the judges, I will not become judgemental about his/her integrity. I have seen many people who appreciated Srikrishna for his report on Bombay riots and abusing him for what he did on Telangana forgetting that there are many fellow academicians in that committee whatever goes against Srikrishna the same will goes against them as well. If what the High court judge said is true, we have to believe that all those academicians also lying. Judges have come from the same society where we are living and the context surely influences them. It is our responsibility to offer critique to what they said or where we differ without denigrating them. The way some of the lower court judges delivered radically progressive judgements, many of them also delivered judgements mixing up their own subjectivity or individual interests. I just want to quote here what Chief Justice of India H S Kapadia said on Sunday (12th March) reported in Indian Express of 13th March:”... judges must not ‘give lectures’ to society while doing their job and should not ‘judge the wisdom of the legislature’. ‘The problem is something we judges impose our own values, likes or dislikes on society’.
Second issue is related to caste. What is so wrong if we name the castes when it is real? Isn’t it true or not? I absolutely agree with your assessment that the Telangana movement is primarily a movement of real estate or competition among elite for increasing rate of profits or wealth. As dominant forces, the upper castes (Reddy and Velama in Telangana and Kamma and Reddy in Coastal and Ralyalaseema) who own much of the industry and service sector are more to gain or lose, certainly not the ordinary people. Our theories of ethnicity and nationalism informed us how the elite will bring masses into movements using appropriate symbols. Whatever may be the future, how these ordinary will benefit from this movements in this neoliberal era of market forces? How it does affect the ordinary when State is withdrawing leaving us to market forces? Where from government jobs come when the state is cutting to the size and restricted to only police functions? Will the new Telangana state nationalise all the private property? Let the Telangana JAC say that you will see the collapse of the movement irrespective of the huge participation of dalits and OBCs in the moment. Then whose movement this is Satish? Why Lagadapati, Kavuri and Rayapati are making so much noise than other leaders from Coastal and Rayalaseema regions? Because they are the major losers. Then if we say that the Telangana movment is dominated by people belong to Reddy and Velama castes and Seemandhra movement is dominated by Coastal Kammas and Rayalaseemas Reddys’ along with sections of Vysyas, Kapus and Rajus, what is so wrong in it? When we are talking in these lines, we are talking in general terms. They are individuals and forces that are always stand away from whatever is happening in their own castes. We are talking about the characteristic of the movement and forces involved in it. Not about the individuals. If we talk about the individuals, in history counter movements against caste oppressions started by the people belong to the same castes. Isn’t it Gurajada who created typical symbolic brahmincal characters like Gireesam, Soujanyarao Panthulu or Agnihotravadhanulu? Isn’t it Arutla Ramachandra Reddy or Kamaladevi who fought against feudal lords of their own castes? Isn’t Chennamaneni Rajeswara Rao who stood away from economics and politics of his own caste? How can we erase “Mabhoomi” or “Dasi” from our own memories Satish? I think Mr. Promod is not aware of the debates within the Telangana movement. Andhra Jyothy editor Mr. Srinivas who is strong supporter of Telangana movement wrote many columns worrying about how feudalism is on rise in post-Telangana movement scenario. In fact, the Telangana JAC under Prof Kodandaram and Gaddar party are flouted to counter these feudal tendencies. Kalpana Kannabhiran, Haragopal, Chukka Ramaiah also wrote articles on these issues. Many of them are aware of the contradictions butt they are thinking that these can be resolved once they achieve the goal of the movement. Political success is essential for achieving social emancipation. In my understanding, it is wishful thinking. Wishful thinking because the rich and elite sections will not allow this to happen and they don’t have that kind of strength and base to achieve this. Hence, this movement is movement by the rich for the rich whether Telangana or Samaikyandhra. Let us stand by that. If the rich are represented by some castes let us state that also. But let us also admit that they are some people who stood away from their own castes and champion the genuine people’s movements whom we cannot bracket in the same category. And we salute them as well.
Third thing Satish. I am afraid I have become too lengthy. But let me finish it off. Who said that Indian and Pakistan Muslims or not same Satish until unless we assume that Indian Muslim means Muslims of Hyderabad or those who living south of Vindhyas? They are the same before the independence, during the independence and after the independence. We political scientists protest when people are categorised invoking single identity – say religion – ignoring broader cultural or other identities/markers. A Muslim in Hyderabad can speak Urdu but not Muslims of Malabar or other south Indian regions. They might have lot difference with north Indian Muslims and many similarities with their neighbourhood Hindus. This is the case with entire India. Geographical variations do give cultural variations as well including language. But it is not the whole story. When India divided, what actually divided is Bengal, Punjab and Sindh. I can’t say much about cultural similarity of the Bengalis as I haven’t visited any part of the Bengal in my life. But let me say about the places closer to where I am working. The Punjabis of this side or that side speak Punjabi, eat Thandoori, sing Qawali, dance banghra. They are same. Same in every aspect, except the dam thing religion. Nusrut Fateh Ali Khan, Shamshad Begam, Reshma, Amrita Pritam... or they Indians or Pakistanis? They are Punjabis by birth, by culture, by value system, by heart and by soul. So is the case with the state of Jammu and Kashmir. At the borders of India and Pakistan in Jammu region, they join together speak in local dialect of Dogri. I have many stories to Narrate. Just I will finish with one story told by Muzfar Beig, former Deputy Chief Minister of Jammu Kashmir who was a leading Supreme Court lawyer. Some time ago, there was a India-Pakistan lawyers forum meeting. He thought that he is going to have a good time with the fellow Muslims from Pakistan. Unfortunately he was end up as a loner because the Punjabi lawyers and Sindhi lawyers of both sides enjoying the company of their counterparts and they are not many lawyers from other side of the border. What I want to say is that the people belong to the areas actually divided are same in all aspects except one – the religion. I can share lot much about our commonness when we meet Satish.
PS: It has become too lengthy and I don’t have patience to read again for correcting language errors. And I am not apologetic about my linguistic errors.
No comments:
Post a Comment