The article published by WSJ which has given leftist media an opportunity to blame Facebook of being Pro-BJP is based on anonymous witnesses/testimonies and an example of T. Raja who once shared a post spreading hate speech and FB blocked the account but did not take any action. It might not have been difficult for an organization like WSJ to find out that the fact that ‘n’ number of non-BJP hate mongers were never blocked from Facebook. The crux of the article gives us minimal to no evidence just like the press freedom index to find out what common criteria were chosen to come to such a conclusion.
Also, the article makes a weird claim that Ankhi Das is Pro-BJP because she once shared a post appreciating Modi and now is unduly favoring T. Raja. The editors who were keen to conclude based on one single post that Ankhi Das is Pro-BJP and therefore unduly favors BJP politicians forgot to take into account Ajit Mohan’s connection with UPA government who was appointed as the head of Facebook India in the year 2018 and the newly appointed policy head Siddharth Mazumdar, an evident critic of Modi who has also worked with Ahmed Patel portrays a contradictory picture.
Atlantic Council
To analyze the whole issue from a squared perspective as to whether Facebook is actually Pro-BJP or not, we need to take into consideration the grand alliance of Facebook with Atlantic Council in the year 2018 to remove fake pages and Pro party pages that can unduly influence the coming elections in India and chose Manish Tewari (UPA) as Distinguished senior Fellow and presented a report stating that they have removed 687 Pro-congress FB pages and did not even mention the number of Pro-BJP pages so that they cannot play the victim card in the name of Freedom of Expression.
Cambridge Analytica
But the ground reality was quite different and to one’s surprise that the pro-BJP pages with over 20 crore followers in total were deleted whereas pro-congress pages with only 2 lakh followers in total were deleted depicts a huge biasness in the core functioning of the organisation. Moreover, it would be hilarious to state that Indians got no memory of the infamous Cambridge Analytica case (a company accused of stealing Facebook Data) where the whistle-blower Christopher Wylie named Congress as one of its parties. Sources also claimed that the suspended CEO of Cambridge Analytica, Alexander Nix met Rahul Gandhi and his office back in London had a congress poster shows definite nexus between Facebook and Congress more than any other party in order to manipulate huge socially active crowd of 21st century.
The obscurantism present in the article takes a course of indefinite heights while extending baseless allegations on Facebook of being Pro-BJP or Pro-right wing whereas the undeniable truth that the whole Silicon Valley is Pro-left which was also testified by the head, Mark Zuckerberg.
The U.S.A. Elections
The whole hullabaloo is about the forthcoming elections in U.S.A which are scheduled to be around November and the leftist media or Pro-democrat media is going the extra mile to portray Biden as the harbinger of ‘Make America great again’. The disguised motive of WSJ to publish such an article at this time is nothing but to influence a sizable number of Indian-Americans, which can also be observed in appointing Kamala Harris who till now use to identify herself as African-American suddenly became Indian. Also, twitter which evidently sides with pro-leftist ideology (both U.S.A. and India) but not Facebook which has unapologetically disagreed to take down certain tweets of Donald Trump commenting “Politicians must be allowed to say what they want to say, so people can see them as they are” and gave clean chit under Freedom of Expression which became indigestible for leftists gang resulting in rise of such articles with relatively similar content in huge number recently in America.
CHINA & WSJ
According to several reports, most of the left-leaning media, as well as Facebook, receive a huge chunk of money from Chinese media heavily controlled by our foe Communist Party of China to push specific propaganda as also observed during Galwan Valley conflict when efforts were made to manipulate and break the strength of a nation by establishing ideological warfare within the nation. As per special reference, WSJ alone received nearly $6 million from China Daily since November 2016 in order to push promotion and create an army of influential people who would support China on all international platforms.
CONCLUSION
The article is nothing but a spiral of web created under the designation of being a popular and easily trusted journal to turntables in the coming elections in the U.S.A. by portraying Facebook as conservative and supporting leftists-claimed Hindutva party in the crowd where the liberal thought process is shunned upon them and is seen as progressive. Through this article, WSJ seems to be pushing the same Chinese propaganda to show the Modi-trump alliance in a bad light so that Biden whose ideologies align with our foe China can be victorious.
The SARS CoV2 virus causing COVID-19 infection is adjectivized novel for a reason. The word novel has it origin from Latin word ‘Novellus’, meaning new. Novel nature of SARS CoV2 virus thus reflects the amount of uncertainties and limitations in our knowledge pertaining to the pandemic. Despite the ongoing robust research globally, ambiguities are still abundant several months after the first case of COVID-19 had been reported in China.
Most debated subject currently is on efforts to minimize the spread of the virus in a population. There have been conjectures concerning strategies that worked best and worst in containing the virus spread across globe. We have been too eager to narrate COVID-19 success and cautionary tales. While speculations seeks to reduce uncertainty, it may not necessarily reflect reality. Even though it is the tallest hurdle to tackle currently, mere efforts to minimize the spread of virus is inadequate. There are few other considerations to be addressed in a comprehensive public health perspective.
Dynamic nature of the pandemic: It is important to acknowledge the dynamic nature of disease transmission and severity. The number of people getting infected could greatly vary depending on the initial load of acute exposure, population demographics, immune response, geographic and climatic conditions to mention a few. Stringent lockdown measures have been effective to an extent in curbing the spread. However, it is still unsure whether extreme shutdown measures could keep the virus away for long. New Zealand who declared zero COVID-19 cases in June is experiencing relapse after two months despite ongoing lockdown measures.1 Similar relapses and second surges can be seen worldwide even with minimal relaxation of lockdown measures in place. The pandemic exhibits periods of peaks and troughs in transmission rate. On the contrary, Sweden who imposed much relaxed voluntary social distancing measures was initially the cautionary tale. Sweden initially experienced higher number of cases and deaths (mostly relating to long term care facilities) compared to the neighboring Scandinavian countries. But Sweden’s strategy seem to have contained spread and reduce death rate in the long run.2 However, it is yet to be seen whether Sweden is going to experience a second wave in the fall when weather is more contusive for viral transmission.
Herd immunity or not?: Another dilemma with regards to COVID-19 is whether an infected person develop long-term immunity to the infection. Presence of long-term immunological response could mean that majority of already infected population cannot be re-infected providing a natural barrier to spread of the virus without stringent social distancing measures. Immune response can be in the form of neutralizing B cell antibody or T cell response which directly kill the virus infected cells. Studies have shown that the B cell antibody response especially in asymptomatic individuals have not been rather promising to provide long-term immunity.34 However, recent research have noted robust T cell immunological response even to asymptomatic or mild cases of COVID-19. Scientists have postulated that the T cell response could protect against re-infections.5 Even though we still do not have definite answers regarding long term immunity to COVID-19, scientific world is providing quite positive inferences. In this context, it needs to reevaluated if very stringent lockdown and social distancing measures are necessary or overkill.
Public health approach: Public health comprises health and wellness of the community in every regard. Given the current situation, COVID-19 takes priority, but should not be the reason to overlook other aspects of public health. Lockdown measures not only takes a toll on the economy, but also on the physical and mental health of individuals. It can especially be marked among vulnerable populations including children and elderly. Inequities in access to health care, education, safe living, food , digital services, and social collaborations have emerged in newer and more concerning shapes in context of the pandemic.6 While efforts are being streamlined to tackle the pandemic, it is of concern up to what extent other aspects of public health should be risked.
Sustainability: Any public health intervention should be sustainable in a manner that benefits are outweighing the damages. Extreme measures imposes colossal economic, political, and psychosocial implications. Overlooking ethical concerns, penalty based and rigorously enforced interventions may not always facilitate safer health practices. A deeper look into the impacts of rigid vs relaxed interventions in terms of spread of infection, severity of disease, mortality rates, protecting the vulnerable, socioeconomic outcomes etc. is the need of the hour at least until an effective vaccine is available. Initial stricter social distancing measures are essential to prepare the health care system and protecting high risk individuals, beyond which sustainability of such interventions in the long run are to be evaluated.
A comprehensive perspective: It is time we start looking into managing the pandemic in an all-embracing approach. Merely reducing the numbers should not be the criteria defining success of COVID-19 interventions. How long can the numbers be curbed? Is relapses in pockets of population inevitable? What else are we putting at stake focusing only on the transmission and death rate? Are the interventions implemented sustainable? All these are concerns to be addressed before narrating success or failure stories. In a recent interview, Sweden’s chief epidemiologist Dr. Tegnell responded with “Judge me in a year” when asked about the Swedish controversial strategy to combat COVID-19.7 His rather direct and concise response adds broader dimensions to our current thinking. Uncertainties pertaining to the pandemic warrants us to await on how outcomes are to pan out. While this is a tough pill to swallow, over enthusiastic speculations could result in contrary consequences.
Chief Justice of India is the head of the supreme court and is responsible for allocation of cases and appointment of constitutional benches i.e. he decides which justice is going to be on which bench. Audi alteram partem (the right to a fair hearing) is the technical term used in the English Law for the natural hearing of any case. I am no lawyer but this, in my little understanding, means to provide fair justice even the perception of bias could not be observed in any judgment or verdict of the court. This was to instill confidence in the public and keep the judges in check.
Now, the case of Mr. Prashant Bhushan. I, like so many others, am hearing things from media. Mr. Bhushan, a supreme court legacy lawyer, has some knowledge of the law. He, with his years of practice and experience, tweeted two personal remarks at the Chief Justice of India. He did not question the legal expertise of the court or question any verdict. He made two remarks which the court explained in its hearing stating the aggressive nature of tweets which “shakes the very foundation of the judiciary in the nation”. The tweets, aggressively, questioned on a social platform where is the helmet if on a bike – same way our ministers comment on the short skirts asking if this is the reason of the increasing number of rapes in the nation. In another tweet questioned the work-ethic of the CJI during ‘lockdown’ – same way Mr. Rahul Gandhi questions intentions and work-ethics of every non-congress politician and government during COVID-19 ‘lockdown’ or Dr. Patra calls out Mr. Gandhi on his ‘meditation’ trips to Thailand; this, of course, comes within the purview of ‘Right to Expression’. If Mr. Bhushan is found guilty, the court will punish him, rightly so. No one in the country should be able to contempt the court ‘criminally’ and get away with it; to hell with his legacy, education, and political reach.
While researching, Wikipedia has an interesting label named “2018 crisis”. In Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms case – corruption scandal in medical colleges in Lucknow; the corruption allegations cast an aspersion on the highest offices of the Supreme Court. In a period of two hearings, the roster of presiding judge was changed from Jasti Chelameswar, the senior-most judge after Misra to AK Sikri. “The same afternoon the matter was suddenly heard by a Constitutional Bench headed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and junior judges hand-picked by him.” The CJI pronounced the order, which emphasized that the chief justice was the master of the roster, that any order contravening the CJI’s administrative power was null and void, and that the CJAR petition would be heard by a new bench constituted by CJI Misra.
Another case in point is a petition for investigation of the death of Justice Loya presiding ever Sohrbuddin Encounter case in which BJP president Mr. Amit Shah is the main accused. It was then, on 12th January 2018 (the case was listed on 11th January), four judges of the Supreme Court – Justice Jasti Chelameswar, the senior-most judge after CJI Misra; Justice Ranjan Gogoi, next CJI; Justice Madan Lokur and Justice Kurian Joseph; in an unprecedented press conference said “We tried to collectively persuade the chief justice that certain things are not in order and therefore you should take remedial measures….Unfortunately, our efforts failed.” He also said, “that unless this institution is preserved and it maintains its equanimity, democracy will not survive in this country.” Interestingly, CJI Gogoi was nominated to Rajya Sabha (the Upper House of Parliament). Then CJI Gogoi gave the landmark verdict of Ayodhya dispute on November 9th, 2019, 8 days prior to his retirement on 17th November 2019.
A case of sexual harassment was filed against the then CJI Gogoi on 10-11 October 2018. In an extraordinary rush to provide justice, the court was opened on a holiday (Saturday), and as per the notice brought out by SC, a bench of three judges was constituted by CJI, presided by the CJI; in a case, he was allegedly the main accused. The CJI described the allegations as unbelievable, and it was beneath his dignity to even deny such allegations. Oh, and the records did not indicate the presence of CJI on the panel. He was cleared by the three-judge in-house inquiry panel, headed by Justice Bodbe – who later succeeded him.
I have carefully not explained the curious case of in causa sua. Nemo judex in causa sua is a legal maxim that means ‘no one ought to be a judge in his own cause’. We know that we are not in the times of Premchand that panch will be parmeshwar; and in that case should we not maintain a panel of retired judges to preside over cases of justices. Is it too much to ask of a country where Judiciary is the third pillar for democracy?
वर्तमान शिक्षा देश की मूल संस्कृति एवं धरती से कटी होने की वजह से राष्ट्र की आवश्यकता के अनुसार नागरिक निर्माण नहीं हो पा रहे। विद्या भारती ने शिक्षा क्षेत्र की इस चुनौती को स्वीकार करते हुए भारत की वर्तमान शिक्षा प्रणाली में आमूल-चूल परिवर्तन कर उसका विकल्प तैयार करने का संकल्प लिया है। विद्या भारती ने आदर्श बालक की कल्पना की है जो सबल, संतुलित, सद विचारी, सत्यान्वेषि तथा सेवा भावी हो।इस हेतु विद्या मंदिर में संस्कारमय वातावरण के निर्माण पर बल दिया जाता है।
शिक्षा जहाँ एक ओर शाश्वत जीवन मूल्यों का वितरण करती है वहाँ दूसरी ओर सामयिक समस्याओं का निदान भी करती है। वर्तमान परिस्थतियों में शिक्षा से यह अपेक्षा है कि राष्ट्र की भावनात्मक एकता के सूत्रों को सुदृढ़ करने में प्रभावी भूमिका निभाए।
सहपाठ क्रियाकलाप
पाठयक्रम की परिभाषा केवल पुस्तकों तक सीमित न हो कर इस की परिधि में आचार्य/शिक्षक का व्यवहार, विद्यालय का भवन, दीवारों पर लगे चित्र तथा लिखे आदर्श वाक्य आदि सह पाठ क्रियाकलाप भी आते हैं। विद्या भारती के विद्या मंदिरों में इतिहास के गौरव शाली प्रसंगों को प्रार्थना सभा में सुनाया जाता है और इस संबंधी प्रतियोगिताएं आयोजित की जाती है।समूह गान, क्षेत्रीय भाषाओं के गीत, भिन्न-भिन्न प्रांतों की वेशभूषा, प्रेरणादायक प्रसंग तथा चित्र कला प्रतियोगिता आदि की व्यवस्था द्वारा भारत की समृध्द संस्कृति को विद्यार्थियों को आत्मसात करवाया जाता है।देश-दर्शन कार्यक्रम, अपना प्रांत,देश पहचानो, प्रश्न मँच, मेरा विद्यालय,देश के सभी सद्गग्रंथो की प्रदर्शनी, मलिन बस्तियों और बोर्डर क्षेत्र के सर्वे द्वारा सामाजिक कुरीतियों के प्रति छात्रों को जागरूक किया जाता है। विद्या भारती पंजाब द्वारा उत्तर क्षेत्र के संगठन मन्त्री विजय नड्डा जी के मार्गदर्शन में किया गया जालंधर में स्लम सर्वे और बॉर्डर क्षेत्र में सर्वे द्वारा वहाँ की समस्याओं से भविष्य के भारत को जागरूक करना एक सराहनीय प्रयास है।
देश के सम्मानों के पार्टी सम्मान के भावों का उदय करना एवं राष्ट्रीय सेवा योजना, स्काउटिंग आदि गतिविधियों को संस्कारमय रूप देना तांकि छात्र सेवा भावी, देश भक्ति से ओत-प्रोत नागरिक बन सकें। हमारे विद्या मंदिर सामाजिक चेतना का केंद्र हैं! कोरोना की वैश्विक महामारी में देश भर में किये गए सराहनीय राहत कार्य हम सब के सामने है।पर्यावरण की सुरक्षा हेतु वृक्षा रोपण करना एवं व्यवस्था और अनुशासन पर बल दे कर राष्ट्र निर्माण में उनकी आहुति बढ़िया से डलती रहे ऐसा प्रयास रहता है। इस के अतिरिक्त भारत के ज्ञानियों, योगियों, संतों, समाज सुधारकों एवं शिक्षाविदो से परिचय करवा कर राष्ट्र भक्ति से ओतप्रोत युवा पीढ़ी का निर्माण विद्या भारती सफलता से कर रही है।
राष्ट्रीय शिक्षा के कार्यक्रम को संतुलित तथा ईमानदारी से निरंतर बिना थके लेने की आवश्यकता है।विद्याभारती के सभी कार्यकर्ता इस भाव से तपस्या करने की ओर अग्रसर हों कि भारतमाता को परम वैभव पर पहुंचाने के लिये राष्ट्रीय शिक्षा सभी विद्या मंदिरों में सफलता पूर्वक दी जा रही है। राहुल गांधी द्वारा यह बताया जाना कि “विद्या भारती के स्कूलों में आंतकवादी पढ़ते हैं उनकी विद्या भारती के लिये अल्पज्ञता ही दिखाती है।
नहीं जानते थे उठने को, ब जब कहा गया है करने को तो चलेंगे और पढ़ेंगे आसमां तक।”
Spirit of ‘Rashtriyatva’ was dominant in Bharat from the ancient times. From the beginning of human history Bhartiyas saw Bharat as a full fledged ‘Rashtra’ Many of us are of the impression that Western nationalism is the English equivalent of our ‘Rashtriyatva’. This however is neither the actual case nor borne out by historical facts.
Nationalism in Europe Initial European history is marked with family as the only social unit which was subsequently replaced by the scattered nomadic tribes. Tribalism based upon blood relationship, formed the foundation during that period. Territorialism was evolved in course of a number of centuries in the Middle ages. Synchronisation of the two in to nationalism is as recent as French revolution. In case of Bharat such synchronisation was already prevalent when history opened its eyes.In later period Greeks furnished the first organised leadership to Europe. But they donot constitute a ‘Nation’. They had their city states but nothing like a’ Greek nation’. Rome was also a city state until it attained the status of empire, but breathed the spirit of international imperialism of a city-state and not of ‘Nation’. Under the christian church, all Christians belonged to one family. Growth of nationalism was inconceivable so long as the church was influential. The first patriotic war fought by English was the’ War of Jenkin’s Ear’ in the Eighteenth century. Before that wars were either religious or dynastic.
Hindu rashtra as old as our sacred vedas*
Nationalism in Europe is recent in origin and reactionary in character. Western nationalism is incapable of being as intense and sanctified as Bhartiya Rashtriyatva which is as ancient as the Himalayas. In Bharat, the motherland and the National society have been so very identified that it is impossible to think of the one without being reminded of the other. Consequently the sacred and tender emotions of the sons and daughters of the soil are naturally directed towards Bharat Mata. This is the unique feature of Bhartiya Rashtriyatva.
European nationalism and Bhartiya Rashtriyatva
European nationalism is narrow, reactionary and anti-religion.Due to reactionary nature it is incompatible with the ideal of internationalism. The content of Bhartiya Rashtriyatva is positive.Hindu nationalism is internationalistic in its tendencies and approach as it exhibited the spirit of Universalism. Also by virtue of its supremacy for centuries, the church constituted the greatest challenge to any other concept that emerged as its rival. Loyalty of Bhartiya is not torn between Fatherland and Motherland.To him Bharat is both because every particle of its earth is sacred to him.
Influenced by the western education our intellectuals are tempted to gauge by the yardstick of the west. Due to this there is general misunderstanding about the precise meaning or import of the terms Rashtriyatva and Nationalism. There is such a marked difference between the two that the one cannot be treated as an equivalent of the other. Our concept of ‘Rashtra’ is unique and the west can boast of nothing similar or parallel to it.
एक वाक्या आज याद आता है कि “कानून के हाथ लंबे होते हैं” शायद इसी बात को चरितार्थ किया गया है, माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायलय ने, करोड़ लोगों की मनसा थी कि इसमें सीबीआई जांच होनी चाहए, ट्विटर पे, फेसबुक पे, मीडिया में, सब जगह एक ही बात की गूंज थी “Justice for SSR” “CBI for SSR”. ये आम लोगों की आवाज थी, ये आवाज शायद इसलिए थी कि सबको ये जानने की जिद थी कि एक सुपरस्टार, खुशमिजाज लड़का, छोटे शहर से आया हुआ लड़का आज बुलंदी को छू रहा था, फिर उसने आत्म हत्या आखिर क्यों?
कानून:- अभिनेता सुशांत सिंह राजपूत की मौत से जुड़े मामले की जांच सीबीआई को सौंपने के बिहार सरकार के आदेश को सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने बुधवार को बरकरार रखा।
न्यायमूर्ति की एकल पीठ ने कहा कि बिहार पुलिस अभिनेता के पिता की शिकायत पर सुशांत सिंह राजपूत की आत्महत्या के संबंध में एफआईआर दर्ज करने के लिए अधिकार क्षेत्र में थी, और इस मामले को सीबीआई को सौंपना भी वैध ठहराया। कोर्ट ने मामले की फाइलें सीबीआई को सौंपने और आवश्यक सहायता प्रदान करने के लिए महराष्ट्र पुलिस को निर्देश दिया है।
सीआरपीसी की धारा 406 में प्रदत्त शक्तियों के तहत जांच को स्थानांतरित नहीं किया जा सकता, माननीय सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने आदेश दिया कि “इस अदालत द्वारा सीबीआई जांच का आदेश दिया गया है। महाराष्ट्र पुलिस को अनुपालन और सहायता करनी चाहिए।” न्यायालय ने अभिनेता सुशांत सिंह राजपूत की मौत के संबंध में सीबीआई को भविष्य में दर्ज किए गए अन्य मामलों की भी जांच करने का निर्देश दिया है।
दरअसल अभिनेत्री रिया चक्रवर्ती जो सुशांत की दोस्त भी थी, सुशांत सिंह राजपूत के पिता के आरोपों पर बिहार पुलिस द्वारा दर्ज FIR को पटना से मुंबई स्थानांतरित करने और बिहार पुलिस द्वारा जांच पर रोक लगाने की मांग को लेकर सुप्रीम कोर्ट में याचिका दाखिल की थी। सुशांत के पिता ने आरोप लगाया है कि उसने उनके अभिनेता बेटे को आत्महत्या के लिए उकसाया था।यह कदम तब आया था जब राजपूत के पिता ने चक्रवर्ती और उनके परिवार के सदस्यों सहित छह अन्य लोगों के खिलाफ पटना में राजीव नगर पुलिस स्टेशन में प्राथमिकी दर्ज कराई, जिसमें अभिनेता की आत्महत्या के लिए उकसाने का आरोप लगाया गया था। जिसमें मुंबई पुलिस 34 वर्षीय अभिनेता के असामयिक निधन के कारणों को जानने के लिए महेश भट्ट, संजय लीला भंसाली, आदित्य चोपड़ा और अन्य जैसे बॉलीवुड के बड़े निर्माताओं और निर्देशकों से पूछताछ में व्यस्त रही, लेकिन मामले में मोड़ तब आया जब राजपूत के पिता ने रिया खिलाफ एफआईआर दर्ज कराई। रिया चक्रवर्ती ने मुंबई पुलिस के साथ अपना बयान भी दर्ज कराया था। दरअसल सिंह ने 25 जुलाई को आईपीसी की विभिन्न धाराओं के तहत 306 (आत्महत्या के लिए उकसाने), 341 (गैरकानूनी तरीके से रोकना), 342 (गलत तरीके से बंधक), 380 (आवास गृह में चोरी), 406 (अमानत में ख्यानत) और 420 (धोखाधड़ी व बेईमानी से संपत्ति को हड़पना) के तहत प्राथमिकी दर्ज की आपराधिक विश्वासघात) मुकदमा दर्ज कराया था। कई राजनीतिक नेताओं और फिल्मी हस्तियों ने सुशांत की मौत की सीबीआई जांच की मांग की है।राजपूत की संदिग्ध मौत ने हिंदी फिल्म उद्योग में कथित भाई-भतीजावाद और पक्षपात पर बहस छेड़ दी,
कोर्ट ने अपने फैसले में लिखा, ‘सुशांत सिंह राजपूत एक टैलंटेड ऐक्टर थे और उनकी पूरी काबिलियत का पता चलने से पहले ही उनकी मौत हो गई। काफी लोग इस केस की जांच के परिणाम का इंतजार कर रहे हैं, इसलिए कयासों को रोकना होगा। इसलिए इस मामले में निष्पक्ष, पर्याप्त और तटस्थ जांच समय की जरूरत है।’
न्यायमूर्ति ऋषिकेश रॉय की एकल पीठ ने अपने फैसले में कहा कि बिहार सरकार इस मामले को जांच के लिये सीबीआई को हस्तांतरित करने में सक्षम थी। उन्होंने कहा कि राजपूत के पिता की शिकायत पर बिहार पुलिस द्वारा प्राथमिकी दर्ज करना सही था और इसे सीबीआई को सौंपना विधिसम्मत था।
आर्टिकल 142 संविधान द्वारा सुप्रीम कोर्ट को दिया गया विशेष अधिकार है. इसका इस्तेमाल कर सुप्रीम कोर्ट विशेष परिस्थिति में अपना फैसला सुना सकती है.
बता दें कि हाल ही में राममंदिर निर्माण को लेकर सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने आर्टिकल 142 का प्रयोग कर फैसला सुनाया. इसके अलावा, हाईवे पर बिकने वाली शराब पर पाबंदी लगाने के लिए भी कोर्ट ने इसका उपयोग किया था. वहीं भोपाल गैस काण्ड मामले में भी कोर्ट ने आर्टिकल 142 का प्रयोग किया था.
इसलिये ये एक तरह से बहोत अच्छा आर्डर है, सर्वोच्च न्यायालय अपना पावर इन सब मामलों में इस्तेमाल कर सकती है।अगर कानून से अलग यानी संवेदना की बात करें तो लोगों का जुड़ाव था इस मामले में, बिना पैसा के, बिना किसी लोकप्रियता के लोग लगे रहे सिर्फ एक उम्मीद में की अगर सीबीआई जांच होगी तभी न्याय मिलेगा क्योंकि मुम्बई पुुुलिस के रैवये और राजनीतिकरण पे लोगों का भरोसा नही था।
लेकिन लोकतंत्र में न्यायालय सर्वोपरि होता है, क्योंकि लोगों को सबसे ज्यादा भरोसा सिर्फ न्यायालय पे होता है। बड़े बड़े वकीलों की जिरह के बाद “आर्डर” आता है, ऐसा कभी नही होता कि एकतरफा जिरह और एकतरफा फैसला हो, जो सविंधान या कानून कहेगा वही “आर्डर” आएगा , बिहार के लिए ये खुश होना अनिवार्य इसलिए है कि उनके मकसद और न्याय की लडाई को स्वीकृति मिल गई है।
MSD has retired and how! The man after having conquered billions of hearts has just moved into oblivion without much fanfare. MSD’s journey and traits encapsulates everything that is synonymous with New India and his Instagram message on retirement was just one sample. Hailing from a small town with great aspirations, climbed up the ladder through hard work, supremely confident, led from the front, never afraid of speaking out, not averse to taking big decisions laced with risks, not scared of failure, staying practical when it came to dealing with seniors, remaining cool, humble, staying out of the limelight and finally not feeling entitled. All these that describe the man are all that the India we live in today can connect with. Following his fascinating journey that ended a few days back would throw up instances of him exhibiting these traits.
Coincidentally, one can see all these characteristics in our PM who is shaping this New India. And like Modi he too inherited the captaincy of the team when things were going downhill after the 2007 WC disaster, confidence of the people on the team at its lowest. He took it as a challenge and turned things around. Let me keep aside my temptation to find more similarities between the 2 captains for some other time and focus on some moments capturing his qualities.
To start with, he didn’t have much backing but through his hard work made the strides. Took a huge risk, something he did all along his career, leaving his job to focus on his passion and finally it paid off. After some initial failures his career took off with a century in his 5th innings and what followed was something which one can just dream off. From there on he started finishing games consistently. Coming in down the order he made it almost customary, along with Yuvraj, to take the team through. As a result of that India, under Dravid, went on to win record consecutive chases – 17 on the trot. Then 2007 WC happened. Things started going downhill for the team and personally as well as public protested outside his home after an early exit. All this caused by the Aussie coach Greg Chappell who tried to change too many things too quickly without understanding the Indian psyche. That left our cricket in tatters. The scar it left was too deep. It was told that none of the seniors wanted the mantle then with some people recommending Dhoni’s name for captaincy and also opting out of the 1st T20 WC. The selectors were forced to take a chance and name Dhoni as the captain giving his 1st challenge with a relatively new team with quite a few unknown faces. To some extent that helped in keeping the expectations low.
His decision making and risk-taking ability was in full display throughout this tournament. 2 distinct moments to call – his choice of bowlers in the bowl out against Pak and the most talked about decision to get Joginder to bowl the last over. India scripted a famous win over the traditional rival and from then on MSD went from strength to strength which culminated in him winning all 3 major limited overs ICC tournaments. Along the way India kept winning several ODI series where we had never won before.
As a player he had immense self-belief. He never let the pressure get onto him something he himself has said on many occasions. He believed that if he stayed till the end he can help the team cross the line. In fact, lots of commentary has been written on how the pressure was on the bowler in that 50th over. Before Dhoni the world had seen Michael Bevan finishing games with such regularity. However, where MSD stands pout is the sheer number of matches he has won, aggregate runs scored (10,000+) and that too at a phenomenal SR and most of them with the burden of captaincy. For a generation which grew up on giving up hopes the moment Sachin departed his cool demeanour was something refreshing. The TV sets would still be on as people started to believe that Dhoni would pull it off. And the more the match went deeper the higher went the hopes. 2011 WC final was one such instance when yours truly kept watching even after Malinga silenced the crowd, something I didn’t in the 1996 semis against the same opponent. And boy he didn’t disappoint. The image of the bat swing off Kulasekara would remain etched in memory forever.
As a captain he always led from the front. Coming in at 5 in the all-important final encapsulated this trait more than anything. He knew he had to guide his team through when the match was interestingly poised. He set such high standards with his fitness and having set an example wanted others to emulate. He couldn’t take any excuses on this front and portrayed his trait of speaking out. He was vocal about the slow movers hurting the team making the selectors realize that ignoring him could result in the team failing. He was pragmatic in his thinking, he knew everyone had a shelf life and beyond that would be a liability. Yet, he didn’t undermine or disrespect the seniors. He knew that for all practical purposes for the ODI team to move forward we had to think beyond the legends given how the game had moved on and become fast paced. Yet, he realized they had something to give in the longer format. He gave their due and what a gesture it was Ganguly to lead the team for a couple of overs in Dada’s last test. In effect he achieved what Chappell as the coach set out to achieve but his practical approach showed how it should be done.
Coming to his most talked about characteristic – the one that earned him the title “Captain Cool”. He remained unmoved in victory or defeat. Probably if people were asked to guess the result of the match by just looking at Dhoni most would get it wrong. It is a mystery that how could he keep his emotions at check for so long. It is so easy to recollect the times he punched his fist or yelled or let himself go – one such rare occasion that comes to mind when there was an outpour of emotions was after yet another last ball heist against KXIP. That took CSK to semis and they went on to win the IPL that year. He made it a tradition that after a tournament triumph he would let the youngest member to lift the cup and would slip into the sidelines.
Finally, to end the way he did brought out the best of all his traits – staying humble and putting country first. Neither was there a grand announcement nor was there a sense of entitlement. For a man who gave the country plenty to cheer about none would have grudged a farewell match even if it came at a venue of his choice. But then he knew the nation owed him nothing though he was the architect of billion people’s happiness, not just once but many times. That, to me, is the important trait our New India is putting on in the last few years rejecting all those who think they are entitled. Similar to the way he used to finish off games with ease he ended his career, living up to the tag of “Ultimate Finisher”.
The remarkable journey, punctuated with his various qualities all along, has come to an end. Thank you MSD – you bow out as arguably one of the greatest exponents and best ever captain white ball cricket has ever seen.
The Parliament is the legislative organ of the government. It occupies a very eminent and important position in the British political system due to the adoption of the parliamentary form of government from the very beginning. This is also known as the Westminster form of government as the Parliament is situated in Westminster, London.
In the United Kingdom, the Parliament consists of the Monarch, the House of Lords (Upper House) and the House of Commons (Lower House). The monarch is not a Member of the Parliament and does not sit in the Parliament or attend its meetings but he’s an integral part of the same.
The Parliament has evolved over a long period of time. In the 1200s, the ruling elite in the United Kingdom consisted of the monarch, the barons, the senior military officers, the merchant class and the clergy. King John was the King of England from 1199 until his death in 1216. He was the third king of the House of Plantagenet. He was an autocrat and concentrated all powers to himself. He tortured his subjects and raised the taxes imposed on them annually. Failure to pay the taxes on time could result in imprisonment or death. The Barons and merchants’ lands and businesses were often seized by the King and their taxes had been increased too, which they had to pay even if they ran at a loss. The King also tried to reduce the Church’s power and started State sponsored harassment of the same. As a result, all of them united against King John. In the run-up to 1215, huge battles between the King’s Army and his opponents’ Army ensured.
Ultimately, the King’s forces were defeated in London in 1215 and his opponents’ Army marched to the King’s palace. They forced him to negotiate and sign the Magna Carta in 1215. He agreed to follow sixty rules laid down by the Barons. Rule of Law ensured that nobody, not even the King was above the law. In 1265, as de facto ruler Simon de Montfort got ordinary representatives of towns and cities to the Montfort Parliament. His Parliament was merely a packed room of people discussing the issues of the country and its welfare, but Simon is regarded as one of the forerunners of British parliamentary democracy. The Oxford Parliament stripped the King of unlimited authority and power and the Montfort Parliament included ordinary representatives of the people and citizens from the towns and cities. Gradually, the Parliament became more powerful than the King.
The Parliament examines what the Government is doing, makes new laws, holds the power to set taxes and debates the issues of the day. The House of Commons and House of Lords each play an important role in Parliament’s work.
The voters of the UK elect 650 Members of Parliament (MPs) to represent their interests and concerns in the House of Commons. MPs consider and propose new laws, and can scrutinise government policies by asking ministers questions about current issues either in the Commons Chamber or in Committees.
The House of Commons of England started to evolve in the 13th and 14th centuries. It became the House of Commons of Great Britain after the political union with Scotland in 1707, and assumed the title of “House of Commons of Great Britain and Ireland” after the political union with Ireland at the start of the 19th century. The “United Kingdom” referred to was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland from 1800, and became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland after the independence of the Irish Free State in 1922. Accordingly, the House of Commons assumed its current title. Under the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, the Lords’ power to reject legislation was reduced to a delaying power. The government is solely responsible to the House of Commons and the Prime Minister stays in office as long as he or she retains the confidence of a majority of the Commons.
The members of the House of Lords can be:
(i). The politicians/persons nominated by the political parties. e.g. Baron Nazir Ahmed of the British Labour Party.
(ii). Distinguished personalities of various walks of life like the Bureaucracy, Military, Arts, Academics, Journalism, Culture, etc. e.g. Field Marshal Lord Charles Guthrie(Military), Lord Inderjit Singh (Journalism), etc.
It is interesting that there is no bar of becoming a member of the House of Lords of people who were not originally born in the UK, but became British citizens later, like Lord Inderjit Singh and Lord Meghnad Desai, et.al.
(iii). The Lords Spiritual of the United Kingdom, i.e. the clergy, who are the 26 Bishops of the established Church of England who serve in the House of Lords. Example, Baron Williams of Oystermouth (Archbishop of Canterbury from December 2002 to December 2012).
(iv). Hereditary Peers, Peers who are the members of the House of Lords by virtue of their ancestry. These are usually members of the aristocracy, royalty, nobility, etc. e.g. Lord Harold Macmillan (then Earl of Stockton and later, the UK Prime Minister), Lord Mountbatten (distinguished military officer and member of the British Royal Family), etc.
Ministers in the United Kingdom are members of either the House of Commons or the House of Lords. A handful have been appointed who were outside Parliament, but in most cases they then entered Parliament in a by-election or by receiving a peerage (being made a peer). Since 1902, all prime ministers have been members of the Commons; the sole exception was during the long summer recess in 1963: the 14th Earl of Home disclaimed his peerage (under a new mechanism which remains in force) three days after becoming prime minister, and became Sir Alec Douglas-Home. The new session of Parliament was delayed to await the outcome of his by-election, which happened to be already under way due to a recent death. As anticipated, he won that election, which was for the highest-majority seat in Scotland among his party; otherwise he would have been constitutionally obliged to resign. Since 1990, almost all cabinet ministers, save for three whose offices are an intrinsic part of the House of Lords, have belonged to the Commons.
Few major cabinet positions (except Lord Privy Seal, Lord Chancellor and Leader of the House of Lords) have been filled by a peer in recent times. Notable exceptions are Peter Carington, 6th Lord Carrington, who served as Foreign Secretary from 1979 to 1982; David Young, Lord Young of Graffham, who was appointed Employment Secretary in 1985; Lord Mandelson, who served as Business Secretary; Lord Adonis, who served as Transport Secretary; Baroness Amos, who served as International Development Secretary; Baroness Morgan of Cotes, who is serving as Culture Secretary; and Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park, who is serving as Minister of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Minister of State for International Development. The elected status of members of the Commons (as opposed to the unelected Lords) and their direct accountability to that House, together with empowerment and transparency, ensures ministerial accountability. Responsible government is an international constitutional paradigm. The Prime Minister chooses the ministers, and may decide to remove them at any time, although the appointments and dismissals are formally made by the monarch.
In the past, the House of Lords used to be very powerful, but in the modern day, the House of Lords must respect the primacy of the House of Commons. The House of Lords is not an elected house, so to make it more powerful than the Commons was deemed improper. As such, the two Parliament Acts in 1911 and 1949, plus conventions have severely limited the powers of the House of Lords. For example these removed the House of Lords’ right to veto a bill (potential law) and besides this, they placed a limit of a year on how long they can potentially delay it before sending it back to the Commons to be amended. The House of Lords is a legislative House, the people in it are not front bencher politicians. All MPs in the House of Commons may not be equally brilliant, but their function is to use their expertise to ensure a bill is feasible, pro-people, cost-effective and that it’s passed soon by the Parliament.
Therefore, the House of Lords and the House of Commons of the British Parliament are two different Chambers embracing the representatives of the people of the UK. It is a very distinctive feature of the British Constitution indicating that the interests of all people are to be taken care of by the British Government. In essence, British Constitution is concerned not with a particular group of people but with the compendium of people who are not alike but may appear to be antagonistic to one another and they are the British Parliament, Monarch, Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers, Judiciary and the Clergy, thereby acting as the guardian of the people of the UK. In fact, the British Constitution is a real constitution, of the people, by the people and for the people.
About the author: Sauro Dasgupta is pursuing his bachelor’s degree in Political Science with a specialization in International Relations at Jadavpur University, Kolkata, India. He is interested in reading, writing, public speaking and his writings have been published in many important magazines, journals and newspapers. He can be contacted at [email protected].
When parents identify that their children have a liking towards music and a tolerable voice, the hunt for a good music teacher begins. In no time, parents begin to picture their child on stage surrounded by a tanpura and a tabla, giving a performance, as they hear the applause. Music is now an art, within the reach of every home. Today, if most children and adults have access to being trained and making their dreams of performing, a reality, the credit goes to Pandit Vishnu Digambar Paluskar.
Pandit Vishnu Digambar Paluskar is seen as a musician who brought respect to the profession of classical musicians and who took Hindustani classical music to the masses. India Today Magazine, named Vishnu Digambar Paluskar as one among the 100 people who shaped India in its 2000 millennial issue, and rightly so. He sang sophisticated and erudite compositions for the real connoisseurs, national songs for the patriots and devotional songs for the pious. Pandit Paluskar believed that music is beyond tuning words about wine and women to an engaging rhythm and worked towards revolutionizing the taste of people of that time. He established that music was a “manifestation of divinity latent in man”.
Born on 18 August 1872 in Kurundwar, Maharashtra, V D Paluskar ji was loved by all because of his charisma and melodious voice. He sang bhajans and keertans taught to him by his father, Pandit Digambar Gopal Paluskar, a renowned keertankar. On the auspicious day of Deepawali, Vishnu ji lost his eyesight in an accident involving a firecracker. The thirteen year old was taken to Miraj, Maharashtra to be treated and only his facial injuries were cured miraculously. Since he could not study further, it was decided that he would train in music (S. B. Nayampally, 1971). Pandit Balkrishnabuwa Ichalkaranjikar, the torchbearer of Gwalior gharana tradition, trained him. 9 years after training in the gurukul system (staying and doing domestic chores in the guru’s home in return for the knowledge imparted), he was permitted to give solo recitals. He journeyed northwards from Maharashtra with a zeal to learn different styles of music. He performed in several cities. Offers poured in from many princely states, for him to be their court musician. Rani Jamnabai of Baroda wished to engage him as a Darbari gayak for Rs.400 per month (Misra, 1981). However, he respectfully declined. His aim was much greater. He wanted to restore the status of music in the Indian society.
Musicians were looked down upon as mere entertainers, in the Indian Society. Music thrived under the state patronage but gradually, the rulers became indifferent to the arts and culture. Common man thought of music as a royal luxury. Hence, music had become detached from society and musicians were looked down upon. Vishnu Digambar Paluskar set out on the journey to bring glory to the musicians and bring it to the masses, so that everyone could understand that music was a pathway to divinity and above mere entertainment.
To bring music to common man who did not have the facility to learn music, Pandit Paluskar started a college in Lahore in the year 1901, the Gandharva Mahavidhyalaya. He spent three years raising funds to establish the college. Here, is a picture of the Gandharva Mahavidyalaya in Lahore (Bhakle, 2005) :
Gandharva Mahavidyalaya, Lahore
It was not easy to bring students to the college and there were days when Pandit ji sat alone with his tanpura, and rendered melodious compositions, in the room. Gradually, people began to show interest in learning the art. Degrees were conferred upon students who completed the nine-year course. When asked about his goal for the institution, he said that he, “wished to produce, Kansens (Connoisseurs of Music) and not Tansens” (Misra, 1981). He created a platform for everyone to learn, young and old, men and women and rich and poor. For students who could not afford to pay the fees of Rs.101, the fee was waived and they were made part of the Upadeshak batch. He issued bonds to these students, to ensure that they would not take their musical education lightly. If a student wished to leave midway, they had to pay a full penalty stipulated at the time of signature. What distinguished the regular curriculum students from the Upadeshak batch was that Pandit ji taught the students of the Upadeshak batch, how to teach music for a living instead of training them to become performers. Such was Pandit Paluskar’s vision. He did his share to ensure that the financially disadvantaged benefit from training in music and succeed in fending for themselves.
Example of the Bond
Here is an example of such a bond:
I hereby write to the Principal of the Gandharva Mahavidyalaya that my younger brother, Omkarnath is 14 years old. He is Brahmin by caste. I am placing him in your school to learn music in accordance with your rules, and I guarantee this by the terms of a nine-year bond. The rules of the Upadeshak class are acceptable to us. Because we are poor, we are not able to pay the fees of the school, which is why I am placing him in the Upadeshak class. If for some reason, I wish to remove my brother from the school before the nine years are over, then the fine due us rated at Rs.15 per month, from the day he was entered until the day he leaves, will be paid by us without delay.” (Bhakle, 2005)
In 1908, Bombay gave a grand welcome to the Gandharva Mahavidyalaya. But, in the year 1924, the building was auctioned, since the loans had to be paid back. The First World War and the economic conditions following the war affected the college. A very fascinating fact about Pandit V D Paluskar is that he was the first of his time to organize ticketed concerts. Concerts, for the first time, were made accessible to rich and poor alike, through tickets. He was also the one who organized All India Music Conferences, which brought leading musicians of different gharanas, onto a single platform, a practice common today.
He etched his name in the history of Indian music by introducing the system of notation, which was hardly known at the time. He wrote around 50 books, the most prominent among them being the Sangeet Bal Prakash.
Even on his journey to restore the status of music in the society, he was not ignorant about people’s aspiration for freedom. It would be no exaggeration to say that he set the trend of singing nationalistic and patriotic songs at public functions. At the advent of the Swadeshi Movement, he started the tradition of singing Vande Mataram in gatherings. Congress leaders invited him, to sing Vande Mataram at the beginning of every Indian National Congress session and he attended every meeting since 1915. He sang Vande Mataram in Raag Kafi originally and the whole congregation was spellbound.
An interesting incident took place during the Indian National Congress Session, held in Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh in the year 1923. Maulana Mohamed Ali was the President and as usual, when Paluskar ji rose to sing Vande Mataram, Maulana ji objected stating that music was “Anti-Islamic” (Gadgil, 1978). Here is a report on the incident:
“When Vishnu Digambar rose to sing Vande Mataram in conformity with tradition, Maulana Saheb raised an objection on the ground that music was a taboo in his religion. The leaders assembled were completely bewildered. Vishnu Digambar was incensed, and hit back: ‘This is a national forum, not the platform of any single community. This is no mosque to object to music. There is no justification for a ban on music here. When the president could put up with the music in the presidential procession, why does he object to it here?’ Having silenced the President, without waiting for his reply, he proceeded to sing Vande Mataram and completed it. Respect for his sense of national pride and love of the motherland grew. The people admired his moral courage, and applauded him heartily.” (Athavale, 1967)
He composed Mahatma Gandhi’s favourite Bhajan, Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram that highlighted many a session of the INC and was sung even during the Salt March. He earned the admiration and respect of Bapu ji. He had surrendered to Almighty through his melodious rendition of devotional songs and bhajans. The last few years of his life, he stayed in Panchavati, Nasik and established the Raamnaam Aadhar Ashram. There, he sang Tulsidas’ Ramayana before large gathering. The last days of his life were completely dedicated to music and Lord Ram. His health was not permitting him to travel and so, he retired to Miraj and stayed there until he joined the immortal, on 21 August 1931.
Pandit Vishnu Digambar Paluskar dedicated his whole life to bring music to every home and he succeeded. His disciples, like Omkarnath Thakur, B R Deodhar, Narayan Rao Vyas and Vinayak Rao Patwardhan, carried on his legacy. As Janaki Bhakle said, it would be no overstatement to say that he is responsible for giving Indian classical music as we understand and recognize today, its distinct shape, form and identity (Bhakle, 2005).
As stated by his disciple, B R Deodhar, Panditji trained his loud and coarse voice with determination and hard work, until it was flexible and melodious. This is an inspiration and frankly, a ray of hope for all those who have a passion for music. It pains me that I do not have the opportunity to listen to his voice today. I can only imagine how melodious he sounded. Nevertheless, it is a consolation to have the opportunity to listen to his son, D V Paluskar ji. Here is a link to his rendition of Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jh6K9r-FDYE&feature=youtu.be
Musicians like Pandit Vishnu Digambar Paluskar ji are the reason a young girl like me can dream of becoming a performer. He is an inspiration, not only as a musician but also, as someone who challenged his obstacles. From his story, we learn to never give up on our dreams, face the challenges that come our way, and stand up for what we believe in, always.
REFERENCES: Athavale, V. R. (1967). Vishnu Digambar Paluskar. National Book Trust. B R Deodhar, B. A. (1993). Pillars of Hindustani Music. Popular Prakashan. Bhakle, J. (2005). Two Men and Music: Nationalism in the Making of an Indian Classical Tradition. Oxford University Press. Gadgil, A. (1978). Vande Mataram. Gokul Prakashan Publication. Misra, S. (1981). Great Masters of Hindustani Music. hem Publishers. S. B. Nayampally, Films Division (Director). (1971). Vishnu Digambar Paluskar.
On 14 September 1949, the Constituent Assembly recognized Hindi as the official language of India and it was made official language under Article 343 (1) of the Constitution with Devanagiri script. Hindi and English are the official languages for official work at Centre. After seven decades, in listening and understanding, it seems very natural. But to get this right, Hindi too had to go through a long journey with a great struggle. It is also important for the modern generation to know that this struggle of Hindi language, also affected India’s freedom struggle.
Wood’s dispatch
In the medieval period and even during the rule of the East India Company, the official work of the princely states was carried out in Persian and Arabic. But under the influence of British politicians, the East India Company was under pressure to spread education in India. In 1854 AD, Sir Charles Wood sent some recommendations to the Governor General Lord Dalhousie for expanding education in India and that is called ‘Wood’s Dispatch’. It suggested to provide primary and secondary education to Indians, through vernacular, higher education through English medium and also to open schools based on vernacular locally and colleges at provincial level. The main reason for this was to help Indians in acquiring European knowledge and science. Some schools and colleges etc. were also established with under this scheme.
Hindi Movement
After the revolution of 1857, the power came in the hands of the British Parliament and the expansion of education was greatly accelerated. In this context, the Hindus of Bihar and United Provinces (modern Uttar Pradesh) requested the government that instead of using Persian and Arabic script as the language of official work, Devanagari script and Hindi should be given the status of second official language. Their reason behind this was that Hindi was a regional language and Devanagari script could be written and read by the general public. As soon as the government considered this suggestion as more pragmatic and wanted to accept it in 1867, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan started opposing it and launched a campaign to make Urdu the second official language.
His reason behind this, was that Urdu was the common language of Muslims. He was engaged in the promotion and propagation of Urdu language through his writings, since the end of Mughal rule and the schools and colleges established by him taught in Urdu medium. But his view was narrow and limited to Muslims only. On the other hand, non-Muslims like Hindus and Christians objected to Urdu being the second official language. There were two main arguments against his Urdu, first that it was the language of the common people. Secondly, its script is foreign, which the general public did not know how to read and write. For Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, the insistence of Hindus to make Hindi the second official language was in some way a symbol of the decline of the influence of centuries-old Islamic culture in India. His argument was that Urdu Muslims and Hindus alike have political and cultural heritage. But, due to bitter memories of past Muslim rule, the Hindus were not at all willing to carry on a legacy in which both script and vocabulary are beyond the comprehension of the general public.
It is said that Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, while appearing before the commission appointed by the British Government, he remarked that “Urdu was the language of gentry and of people of high social standing, whereas Hindi was to be the vulgar.” His such controversial remarks provoked a hostile response from Hindu leaders and advocates of Hindi. As a result of that Bhartendu Harishchandra and Raja Shiv Prasad Singh Sitare Hind started promoting Hindi in Khadi Boli with their writings. Acting on the request of the people of United Province and Bihar settled in Bengal, the Lt. Governor of Bengal G. Campbell in 1871, banned Urdu in courts, administration and even in schools. The Hindus of NWFP, Punjab and Sind also rose against Urdu as the second official language. This competition of Urdu with Hindi, created with the rigid instance of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, united Hindus in the region, against Urdu as the second official language.
The success of the Hindi movement was natural as it was close to the masses in terms of script and spoken language. Yet, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan took it Hindu dominance and started promoting Urdu as a symbol of Muslim heritage and language of Muslim intellectual and political class. Using Urdu language, he started pushing for the issues centered on Muslims exclusively. His approach further accelerated the mass polarization as educated and intellectuals Muslim elites adopted Urdu as their spoken language. Later on Urdu became the heart of Two Nation Theory. Thus, the polarization started with the pursuit for political dominance using the faith, had now reached to the language. It gave the impression to Hindus that Muslims would oppose everything that is linked to Indian culture.
Hindi after independence
After independence, the Hindi vs Urdu controversy again became a political weapon. When the issue of official language was being discussed within the Congress, Nehru proposed using Urdu as the official language for Delhi and United Provinces (U.P.). But, Govind Ballabh Pant, P.D. Tandon and K.M. Munshi etc. aggressively opposed his proposal. Seeing the strong opposition to Urdu, Nehru did not insist on it anymore, but he became upset with Govind Ballabh Pant. This incident has been described in detail by contemporary renowned journalist Durgadas in his book ‘India from Curzon to Nehru and After’.
Finally, Hindi emerged victorious and accepted as the official language. Later, on the eve of general elections in 1989, the then state governments of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar gave the status of second official language to Urdu. This was purely appeasement politics which was widely opposed and Vasudev Pandey, a minister in Uttar Pradesh resigned in protest. Despite such obstacles, Hindi is still the language of common people and through TV and cinema, it has become very popular in other non-Hindi speaking states as well.
Today, Hindi is spoken outside India, like in Fiji, Maldives and Suriname in some other countries by the people who had gone there as labor migrants from India. In Sri Lanka, Afghanistan and Gulf countries, some people have learnt Hindi only by watching Hindi movies and TV serials. All this show that in today’s world Hindi is a popular language beyond religion and geographical boundaries.
