If we understand from the perspective of sociology and the demographic population, then it can be said that any struggle has been considered ineffective when women have not participated in it. Whether it is the period of the European Renaissance against witchcraft or the colonial period of India, where women did not fight for the revival and reform of Indian culture, civilization, and education during the Indian independence movement.
“Evidence is unnecessary for the proud successors. Whenever the British recall the resilience of Indian women, the shrewd Queen Laxmibai comes to mind. In addition to securing the nation’s independence, Queen Laxmibai upheld Hindu values and education as inseparable. She resisted the cunning tactics of British-aligned Christian missionaries, and “their slogans are still remembered by the entire world today, like in the words of Lord Krishna, ‘If we are victorious, we will enjoy the rewards of victory; if defeated and killed on the battlefield, we will undoubtedly achieve eternal glory and salvation.'”
The concept of a Hindu nation is rooted in the inspiration, pride, consciousness, and optimism of a Hindu warrior queen who valiantly opposed British colonial rule. She drew her strength from the Bhagavad Gita, the revered scripture of Hinduism, and safeguarded her land, heritage, and faith from foreign intruders.
Furthermore, she lent her support to social reforms and movements aimed at eradicating the hardships and injustices faced by Hindus, particularly women, Dalits, and other marginalized communities. Her vision encompassed a liberated and unified India that would honour the multiplicity and cohesion of its populace while upholding the principles of truth, justice, equality, freedom, and fraternity.
The statement made by former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, in which he said, “India is not just a piece of land, it is a living nation. This thought was greatly emphasized by Durga Bhabhi during the fight for independence. She made significant contributions alongside Bhagat Singhji. She was also against the partition of India, as she believed that India, being a part of an ancient civilization, could not be divided based on religion.”
Sarla Devi was a visionary freedom fighter who considered education as the most powerful tool not only for Odisha but for the entire India. She actively took part in the non-cooperation movement and authored 30 books and 300 essays on various subjects including Indian culture, women’s issues, and politics.
Even today, her renowned book “Bharatvarsha: The Cradle of Civilizations – A Story of Ancient India” holds significance. By reading this book, we can still contribute to the study of India’s cultural and scientific aspects, as well as its politics, economy, and more.
From the era of freedom today, we realize that whether it’s Queen Laxmi Bai, Sarla Devi, or Durga Bhabhi, the power of women was awakened concerning their culture and education. India will truly become a world leader only when its daughters understand and embrace the ancient Indic culture of the world, becoming a part of the country’s way in various fields such as politics, economics, science, and beyond. Because when a daughter rises and stands, victory becomes paramount.
Prime Minister Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah referred to Rahul Gandhi as the leader who has been launched umpteen number of times but each launch event has been a case of unmitigated disaster for the Congress party. I have no problem with Congress party frittering away its resources on promotion of a product that has inherent defects.
My issue is about the ‘product’ being a diabolical human being who is a perpetual liar and the biggest double-faced person in Indian politics today.
I give my ten reasons to support my POV:
1- Rahul aka RaGa talks of #mohabatKiDukaan but exhibits extreme anger in all his speeches. I didn’t see this middle aged man exhibit the mohabat (love) that he claims to sell from his dukaan (shop) in his 30 minute speech in the Parliament, when he spoke in favour of No-confidence motion moved by his party. There was neither ethos, nor logos or pathos in his hate filled speech against the BJP governments of Manipur and India.
2- RaGa talks about #mohabatKiDukaan but his trusted lieutenant #Surejewala uses cuss words for Indians who vote for BJP. Gives श्राप (curse) to those who vote for BJP. Is this how one spreads love/ mohabat?
3- RaGa has tried to create a North-South divide in the past when he spoke to the Southern India audience. Overtly and covertly he suggested that North Indians are a drag on the growth path of South India. It is a well known fact that Southern Indian states are better off than their North Indian counterparts, in terms of overall economic growth. However it is equally true that the large manufacturing and service sectors in South India have found a great and growing market in the rest of India for their products and services.
4- RaGa talks about fighting corruption but is seen making merry with Lalu Prasad Yadav, a convict who is on bail on medical ground.
Lalu was seen indulging RaGa by asking him to get married and RaGa appeared to be happy in Lalu’s company. This banter was carried out in full public view as the two leaders were on stage in the UPA conclave in Patna not too long ago.
5- RaGa tries to pass off as a beacon of democracy but supports stalling the parliament in almost all sessions. Many important bills are passed without discussions as the Opposition parties stage walk outs. He claims to be a democrat but seems to have driven inspiration from Arvind Kejriwal who earned his spurs by his disruptive style of leadership. RaGa has become a copycat of Kejriwal and like Kejriwal, RaGa has stopped wearing khadi kurta-pajamas in public. Just has Kejriwal wears pant-shirt which is one size loose, RaGa wears a trendy T-shirt and a trouser, both one size tighter than his body frame needs.
6- RaGa talks of empathy and patience but either slinks away or stages a walkout from the Parliament after delivering his own speech. Those who operate #mohabatKiDukaan are supposed to listen more and speak less.
7- Instead of working with his opponents to strive for peace in Manipur, RaGa stokes the fire instead by putting the entire blame, covertly, on just one community.
8- RaGa has hopped into the bed with TMC, a party that doesn’t allow rivals to even file nomination papers for panchayat/ municipal elections. TMC strongmen have unleashed a reign of terror in West Bengal where anyone who is NOT likely to vote for TMC is threatened to stay at home on the polling day.
RaGa’s #mohabatKiDukaan is seen in cohorts with TMC’s reign of terror in Bengal
9- RaGa supports the protests against exclusion of CJI from the selection committee of electing CEC. He has however never raised the demand for inclusion of High Court Chief Justices in the selection committee of Chiefs of State Election commissions. Classic case of hypocrisy and doublespeak, I say.
10- RaGa talks about Bharat Mata getting murdered! He then clarifies that Bharat Mata’s “soul” has been murdered. RaGa positions himself as a practising Hindu but doesn’t even know that ‘soul is never born and hence never dies’.
Isn’t Rahul Gandhi the Mr double-faced man of Indian politics?
The Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) has been at the center of political discussions in Bangladesh, especially after claiming to overthrow the Awami League government on December 10 last year. The party’s optimism stemmed from a secret message allegedly received from former American diplomat William B Milam, known for his connections within the Democratic Party.
The message reportedly promised sanctions on key leaders of the ruling Awami League, leading BNP to plan a massive rally and seat-in on December 10, 2022 to take advantage of the perceived crisis.
William B Milam, former American diplomat, who is considered as an influential figure within the house of Democrats. Ambassador Milam has access to a very large number of Democratic Party leaders, including Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden.
Sometime during October 2022, William B Milam passed a secret message to BNP’s acting chairman and a convicted terrorist Tarique Rahman through Tarique’s man named Mushfiqul Fazal Ansarey giving assurance of series of sanctions on a large number of the leaders of ruling Awami League, including some of the high-profile ministers as well as civil-military officials by December 10. On hearing this news, Tarique Rahman personally spoke to Ambassador Milam a couple of times.
Later he conveyed a message to a selected number of BNP leaders, including at least two of the members of party’s Standing Committee instructing to hold a “massive” rally in Dhaka city on December 10 and take “necessary preparations” for a seat-in once the United States publishes a press release declaring sanctions.
He had chalked-out a detail plan about turning BNP’s party office area into another “Tahrir Square”, while Mushfiqul Fazal Ansarey had repeatedly guaranteed Tarique Rahman of Washington’s “strong directives” to Awami League government to resign and handover power to a “neutral caretaker government” latest by December 15.
With this “solid information” an enthusiastic Tarique Rahman had directed BNP leaders to ensure availability of “sufficient” food stock to feed those party activists who would gather in front of BNP’s office at Naya Paltan area in the city.
As similar message was also communicated to Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus by few of this confidante in the Washington DC, he had established contact with Ambassador Milam and was told that Tarique Rahman has given nod to Yunus for heading the caretaker government once Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina resigns and hands over power. Muhammad Yunus was also given assurance by Tarique Rahman of presidency once BNP returned to power following a general election held under caretaker government by March 2023.
Meanwhile, BNP, Muhammad Yunus and a few other elements, including the family members of war criminals, started enthusiastically pursuing the Biden administration and US Department of State to enhance the size of sanctioned individuals.
By mid-November 2022, several front-ranking leaders of Bangladesh Nationalist Party too were secretly told by Tarique Rahman about the “confirmed” ouster of Awami League government by December 15, 2022. They were asked to ensure the presence of “at least one million” people during the December 10 rally of BNP in Dhaka.
BNP top-brasses also had conveyed the message of possible collapse of Awami League government by December 10, 2022 to several influential leaders of Islamist forces in Dhaka, including Khelafat Andolan and Hefazat-e-Islam and asked them to send “at least two hundred thousand” people to join BNP’s rally at Naya Paltan area by the evening of December 10.
It may be mentioned here that, on December 10, 2021, the US Department of Treasury had imposed sanctions of several officers of the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB), an elite force of Bangladesh Police, on allegations of ‘serious human rights abuse”.
By the noon of December 10, 2022, BNP leaders had realized their firm belief of sanctions targeting “dozens” of leaders of Awami League was not prolific or was based on blank speculations. Hearing this news, Tarique Rahman was thunder-shocked, while several front-ranking leaders of the party were heart-broken. It had put them into serious jeopardy as they were secretly taking preparations for the sudden collapse of the Awami League government and handing over power to a caretaker government which would be dominated by pro-BNP and pro-Islamist individuals.
But the conspiracy has not stopped yet.
As Bangladesh is heading towards another general election, which is expected to be held by January 9, 2024, Bangladesh Nationalist Party has re-accelerated its efforts of getting dozens of the front-ranking figures of the ruling Awami League under US sanctions as well as sanctions under the Global Magnitsky Act by December 10, 2023.
On August 1, 2023, US Ambassador Peter Haas while meeting with Chief Election Commissioner Kazi Habibul Awal said, US will send a monitoring team in early October to assess the pre-polls situation ahead of Bangladesh’s parliamentary elections.
According to Ambassador Haas, the team will comprise experts from the National Democratic Institute. International Republican Institute, and people with vast experience in election monitoring and election preparations.
Although the US ambassador did not provide the detailed schedule of the team, a highly-placed source in Washington DC told me, it is going to take place sometime during the second week of October. Meanwhile, BNP top-brasses, including Tarique Rahman have been suggested by Washington to take preparations for participating in the next general election. Accordingly, the party is secretly working on the list of possible candidates, which is being directly handled by Tarique Rahman and a few of his inner-circle individuals.
Reason behind such preparations of joining the election is – Tarique Rahman is already aware that the US delegation which will visit Bangladesh in October will determine if a free and fair election is possible under the ruling Awami League government. It will thoroughly scrutinize several factors, including background of the key officials of the Election Commission, possible list of election observers, human rights and freedom of expression, and above all – the actual on-ground reality about the atmosphere of a free and fair election.
If the US delegation does not get a satisfactory vibe – Washington will begin imposing sanctions targeting key individuals thus finally ruining the prospect of holding the next general election. Whatever the US policymakers are currently saying or doing is just a part of a massive plot of toppling the Awami League government by the end of 2023.
Startling revelations have come to light regarding activists of the notorious jihadist group, Hizb ut Tahrir in campuses in Bangladesh and the UK. It may be mentioned here that Hizb ut Tahrir denounces democracy and empowerment of women and advocates establishment of Caliphate. These activists have been surreptitiously making their way back to Bangladesh and UK campuses, despite being banned from universities.
Recently, a UK newspaper has exclusively revealed the prominent figures within the British arm of Hizb ut Tahrir, an organization that seeks to establish a global Muslim caliphate under sharia law, have been featured as keynote speakers at ten separate events held within universities over the past 18 months.
Operated by Islamic societies associated with various universities, including Bradford, Birmingham, and the London School of Economics (LSE), these events have managed to evade scrutiny by not publicly disclosing the speakers’ ties to Hizb ut Tahrir. Remarkably, these activities have occurred despite the National Union of Students having long-standing restrictions on the presence of this Islamist group on campuses. Notably, it remains uncertain whether the Islamic societies involved were aware of the Hizb ut Tahrir members’ affiliations.
One of the speakers at these events, Luqman Muqeem, has not only participated in these talks but has also disseminated online videos that advocate violence against Jews, asserting that Muslims should engage in a lethal fight against them and that the Jewish “promised land” is in fact hell. Muqeem, prominently featured on Hizb ut Tahrir’s website, has spoken at multiple events on campuses, including five at Birmingham University and another at the University of Bradford.
While these activities have been ongoing, the fact that the speakers’ connections to Hizb ut Tahrir were not disclosed in event promotions has alarmed the Community Security Trust. They have raised concerns about the group’s attempts to “infiltrate universities by covert means”.
A CST spokesperson emphasized Hizb ut Tahrir’s history of promoting anti-Jewish sentiments and employing front organizations to gain access to campuses.
The Union of Jewish Students also voiced deep concerns, stressing that extremist groups such as Hizb ut Tahrir should not be granted a platform to propagate hatred against Jewish people. Meanwhile, Professor Anthony Glees, an expert in security and intelligence who has extensively researched Hizb ut Tahrir, called for counter-terrorist police to investigate the student societies hosting these speakers, asserting that universities are places of learning and should not provide platforms for extremist ideologies.
Hizb ut Tahrir, established in Jerusalem in 1953, has a history of promoting antisemitism and engaging in activities with violent inclinations. Despite its ban by the National Union of Students in 2004 for its association with supporting terrorism and inciting racial hatred, the group appears to have found ways to circumvent the ban and re-emerge on campuses.
The challenges posed by such activities raise concerns about the ongoing battle to prevent extremist ideologies from taking root within educational institutions and emphasize the need for heightened vigilance in upholding university regulations.
Hizb ut Tahrir’s campus activities in Bangladesh
Hizb ut Tahrir has attracted attention for its activities on university campuses in Bangladesh. While promoting itself as a peaceful organization seeking to establish a global Islamic caliphate, its methods and ideology have raised concerns among both government authorities and academic institutions.
Hizb ut Tahrir advocates for the unification of Muslim-majority countries under a single Islamic state ruled by Sharia law. The organization has been banned in several countries, including Bangladesh, due to its controversial tactics and goals. It often uses campus platforms to disseminate its message, targeting young minds with its vision of a caliphate and promoting its interpretation of Islamic principles.
Hizb ut Tahrir’s activities on university campuses in Bangladesh have included distributing pamphlets, organizing lectures, and conducting discussions on various topics related to Islam, politics, and the establishment of a caliphate. The group often focuses on criticizing the existing political system in Bangladesh, alleging corruption and a departure from Islamic principles. It calls for the overthrow of secular governments and the implementation of its vision for an Islamic state.
Potential for radicalization
Hizb ut Tahrir’s message, while presented as peaceful, has the potential to radicalize susceptible individuals. Its call for the overthrow of the government and the establishment of a caliphate could attract individuals who feel disenfranchised or disenchanted with the current political system.
Disruption of campus harmony
The presence of Hizb ut Tahrir on campuses can disrupt the academic environment. It may create tensions among students with differing ideological beliefs and lead to confrontations or even violence.
Violation of university regulations
Many universities in Bangladesh have regulations that prohibit political activities on campus. Hizb ut Tahrir’s activities may violate these rules and lead to clashes with university administrations.
Government response
The Bangladeshi government has banned Hizb ut Tahrir, and its activities on campuses raise concerns about the organization’s ability to operate covertly. This poses challenges for law enforcement and security agencies to ensure the rule of law is upheld.
Freedom of Expression
Balancing concerns about the potential negative impacts of Hizb ut Tahrir’s activities with the principles of freedom of expression and academic freedom is a delicate task. It is essential to find ways to address extremist ideologies while safeguarding these fundamental rights.
Connections between Hizb ut Tahrir and jihadist groups
Hizb ut Tahrir and jihadist groups share some similarities in terms of their overarching goal of establishing Islamic states governed by Sharia law.
However, there are significant differences in their methods, strategies, and approach to achieving this goal. It’s crucial to understand these distinctions to grasp the connections (or lack thereof) between Hizb ut Tahrir and jihadist organizations. As of my last knowledge update in September 2021, there wasn’t a direct operational alliance between Hizb ut Tahrir and known jihadist groups. Still, there were some indirect ideological overlaps and potential recruitment grounds that need to be examined.
Ideological overlaps and differences
Both Hizb ut Tahrir and jihadist groups, such as Al-Qaeda or ISIS, share a common objective of establishing Islamic states governed by strict interpretations of Sharia law. This goal reflects a desire for political and social change based on their interpretation of Islamic principles.
One of the primary distinctions between Hizb ut Tahrir and most jihadist groups is the former’s explicit commitment to non-violence. Hizb ut Tahrir advocates for a peaceful political revolution to establish the caliphate through ideological propagation, recruitment, and political activism. In contrast, jihadist groups often use violence, terrorism, and armed conflict to achieve their objectives.
Both groups emphasize the importance of the caliphate, but Hizb ut Tahrir’s approach is centered on re-establishing the caliphate through a gradual, non-violent process. Jihadist groups, on the other hand, often prioritize immediate violent actions aimed at territorial control and resistance against perceived enemies.
Hizb ut Tahrir primarily engages in ideological propagation, recruiting individuals through its peaceful activities, and focusing on political change. Jihadist groups rely on a combination of guerrilla warfare, terrorism, propaganda, and territorial control.
Potential for recruitment grounds
While Hizb ut Tahrir officially rejects violence, there have been concerns that its ideological messages and activities could serve as recruitment grounds for individuals who may later be susceptible to the influence of jihadist organizations. This is a potential area of concern, as individuals radicalized by Hizb ut Tahrir’s extremist ideology could later be influenced by more violent groups.
Caliphate ideology poses security threat to the world
The concept of a caliphate, which represents a political and religious authority over the global Muslim community (ummah), can pose security threats to the world for several reasons. It’s essential to recognize that not all interpretations of the caliphate ideology lead to violence or security threats. However, certain extremist interpretations, such as those embraced by groups like ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria), have raised significant concerns. Here are some reasons why the caliphate ideology, when taken to an extreme, can pose security threats:
Some extremist groups seek to establish a caliphate through violent means, including terrorism and insurgency. These groups may employ tactics such as suicide bombings, guerrilla warfare, and attacks on civilian populations to achieve their goal. The violence associated with such efforts can destabilize regions, threaten public safety, and lead to loss of life.
The allure of the caliphate ideology can serve as a powerful recruiting tool for extremist groups. The idea of creating a utopian Islamic state can attract individuals who may feel marginalized, disenfranchised, or disenchanted with the existing political and social order. This recruitment can lead to the radicalization of individuals, further expanding the ranks of extremist organizations.
The pursuit of a caliphate is often linked to rigid interpretations of Islamic law (Sharia) that may curtail individual freedoms and human rights, particularly for minority groups. Extremist groups aiming to establish a caliphate might impose strict social codes, suppress dissent, and engage in persecution of those who do not adhere to their particular interpretation of Islam.
The establishment of a caliphate, especially when pursued by force, can create territorial disputes and conflicts with other nations or non-state actors. These disputes can escalate into regional conflicts, leading to instability and geopolitical tensions.
The caliphate ideology, when propagated through effective propaganda and online recruitment, can attract adherents from around the world. Foreign fighters from various countries have joined conflicts in regions where extremist groups seek to establish a caliphate. The international nature of these conflicts can further contribute to security challenges.
Efforts to establish a caliphate can destabilize countries and regions, leading to power vacuums, weak governance, and increased vulnerability to other security threats, such as organized crime and transnational terrorism.
It’s essential to emphasize that the caliphate ideology, in its moderate and historical forms, does not inherently pose a security threat. However, when embraced by extremist groups that advocate violence, reject peaceful coexistence, and aim to impose their beliefs on others, it becomes a significant concern for global security. Addressing these threats requires a comprehensive approach that includes counterterrorism efforts, counter-radicalization initiatives, diplomatic solutions, and addressing the root causes of extremism.
Caliphate ideology denounces democracy and empowerment of women
The caliphate ideology, as embraced by certain extremist groups and interpretations, often denounces democracy and may advocate for a restrictive view of women’s rights. It’s essential to understand that there is a wide range of beliefs and interpretations within the Islamic world, and not all adherents of the caliphate ideology hold the same views. However, some extremist groups that advocate for a caliphate have historically opposed democratic governance and have implemented or promoted regressive policies regarding women’s roles in society. Here’s why these aspects of the caliphate ideology can be concerning:
Extremist interpretations of the caliphate ideology may reject democratic principles, considering them incompatible with their vision of an Islamic state. They may argue for a theocratic form of governance, where religious leaders or a supreme religious authority dictate laws and policies based on their interpretation of Islamic law (Sharia).
Some extremist groups view democracy as a foreign concept imposed by Western powers. They may believe that Islamic governance, as they interpret it, is superior to democracy and should replace secular systems.
The rejection of democracy in favor of a caliphate can lead to instability and conflict, as extremist groups may seek to overthrow existing governments they view as un-Islamic, potentially leading to violence and political turmoil.
Some interpretations of the caliphate ideology promote traditional and restrictive gender roles for women. This might involve limiting women’s access to education, work, and political participation, often based on a narrow interpretation of religious texts.
Extremist groups that aim to establish a caliphate may curtail the rights and freedoms of women, which can have profound societal implications, restricting women’s empowerment, autonomy, and equality.
Such policies can hinder social progress, economic development, and overall societal well-being by limiting the contributions of half the population.
It’s important to note that these extremist views are not representative of all Muslims or even all proponents of the caliphate concept. Many Muslims and Islamic scholars believe in compatibility between Islam and democracy, as well as equal rights for women within an Islamic framework. Also, there are historical examples of diverse and more inclusive interpretations of the caliphate that supported a broader range of social and political roles for women.
Addressing concerns related to the caliphate ideology requires a nuanced understanding of the specific beliefs and motivations of different groups, while also working to counter extremist ideologies through education, promoting tolerance, supporting women’s rights, and fostering democratic values. The activities of Hizb ut Tahrir on university campuses in Bangladesh raise significant concerns about the potential for radicalization, disruption of campus harmony, and violations of university regulations. Addressing these concerns requires a multifaceted approach that involves proactive measures by academic institutions, effective law enforcement, and a broader societal dialogue about extremism, politics, and freedom of expression. It is essential to find a balance that respects diverse viewpoints while preventing the propagation of extremist ideologies that can threaten stability and peace in the country.
The recent incidents of killings and lynchings in Manipur have struck fear into the hearts of its residents. Disturbing videos of violent confrontations and clashes circulate online, painting a grim picture of a state seemingly engulfed in war-like chaos. As the reports of bloodshed continue to emerge, it becomes increasingly evident that this is not merely an isolated event but a manifestation of deep-seated grievances that have been simmering beneath the surface for decades. If you watch Manipur’s videos, you’ll think that there’s a war going on.
The situation is so serious that the Indian government has used Article 355 to take over Manipur’s security. And it has issued a shoot-at-sight order. The situation in Manipur cannot be understood in isolation; it is a complex web of historical, political, and social factors that have contributed to the current state of affairs. Manipur has a long history of ethnic and political tensions, with various communities vying for recognition and autonomy. The lack of adequate representation and political marginalization of certain groups has bred feelings of alienation and resentment, fuelling a cycle of violence that persists to this day. Socio-economic disparities have also played a significant role in exacerbating the crisis.
Despite the state’s natural beauty and resources, many of its people continue to struggle with poverty, lack of infrastructure, and limited access to education and healthcare. The glaring socio-economic divide has widened the rift between the privileged few and the marginalized masses, leading to a sense of frustration and disillusionment among the latter. Furthermore, demands for regional autonomy and identity have been a longstanding issue in Manipur. Certain sections of the population have expressed a desire for greater control over their own affairs and a preservation of their unique cultural heritage.
However, the central government’s response to these demands has often been inadequate, further deepening the sense of discontent and alienation among the people. The use of Article 355 by the Indian government to take over Manipur’s security reflects the gravity of the crisis. In a desperate attempt to restore order, the government has issued a shoot-at-sight order and imposed a curfew. While such measures may be necessary to contain the immediate violence, they do not address the root causes of the unrest. Instead, they risk exacerbating the underlying issues and perpetuating a cycle of violence and repression.
To truly comprehend and resolve the crisis in Manipur, the nation must rise above apathy and engage in a genuine effort to understand the root causes of the turmoil. Dialogue and reconciliation are crucial to bridging the gaps and healing the wounds that have been inflicted on the state and its people. The central government must display a genuine commitment to addressing the concerns of Manipur’s residents, ensuring adequate representation and participation in the decision-making processes that affect their lives. The curfew has been imposed, the internet is off, and the army has been called.
But how many of us care about what’s happening in Manipur? You’ll find more articles about the Virat Kohli and Gambhir fight than the Manipur violence. But it’s important for me to tell you what’s taking place in Manipur. More importantly, why’s it taking place?
Manipur has predominantly two regions – hills and valley plains. You can see that 90% of the land is in the hill regions. And these areas are home to the Naga and Kuki tribes of Manipur. The complex demographic and territorial distribution in Manipur has been a significant factor contributing to the longstanding tensions and violence in the region. With predominantly two regions – hills and valley plains – occupying 90% and 10% of the land, respectively, the state’s population is divided into different ethnic groups and religious affiliations.
The hill regions, covering 90% of the land, are home to the Naga and Kuki tribes, among others, with a Christian majority. These tribal communities collectively make up only 35% of the population, despite occupying the vast majority of the state’s territory. Within these tribal groups, there are recognized and unrecognized tribes, each with its own distinct cultural identities and histories.
On the other hand, the Meiteis, comprising 65% of the population, predominantly live in the valley plains, occupying just 10% of the land. The Meiteis include Vaishnavite Hindus and Muslims, the latter being known as Pangals. This demographic division of the state has often fueled tensions and conflicts between the hill tribes and the valley tribes. The government’s rules and acts have added complications to the already delicate situation.
Various policies and decisions, such as forest protection initiatives and land acquisitions, have often led to the displacement of tribal communities from their ancestral lands, further exacerbating their grievances and sense of marginalization.
Manipur’s Chief Minister, N. Biren Singh, faced criticism from the Kuki People Alliance, a partner of the BJP government, when some villagers from the Kuki ethnic group were evacuated from the K. Songjon village in the Churachandpur district to protect the forests. The perceived discrimination and marginalization of the hill tribes, coupled with their concerns about land rights and cultural preservation, have been significant drivers of tension and violence in Manipur. The grievances of the tribal communities against the dominant Meitei population have further complicated the situation, leading to a deep-rooted conflict.
Moreover, the presence of unrecognized tribes also adds to the complexity of the issue. The lack of official recognition deprives these tribes of essential rights and privileges, leading to a sense of invisibility and exclusion, which can fuel further discontent and unrest. Despite being home to diverse communities with unique cultural identities, Manipur has struggled to find a harmonious balance among its various groups.
The government’s efforts to address these challenges have often fallen short, leading to frustration and disillusionment among the marginalized tribal communities. To find a lasting solution to the violence and unrest in Manipur, it is essential for the government to prioritize inclusive policies that respect the rights and identities of all communities, regardless of their size or location.
A comprehensive approach that considers the concerns and aspirations of both the hill and valley tribes is necessary to foster unity and stability in the state. Promoting dialogue, reconciliation, and equitable development initiatives that uplift the marginalized communities can help bridge the gap between the different groups and pave the way for a more peaceful and inclusive Manipur.
Recognizing and addressing the historical and socio-economic factors that have contributed to the current state of affairs is crucial in finding a common ground for progress and coexistence. The complex demographic and territorial distribution in Manipur has been a significant catalyst for the tensions and violence that have plagued the state. The disparity in land distribution and population between the hill and valley tribes, along with historical grievances and lack of recognition for certain ethnic groups, has contributed to the prevailing unrest.
To achieve lasting peace and stability, it is imperative for the government to pursue inclusive policies and address the concerns of all communities, fostering a sense of unity and mutual respect. Only through collective efforts can Manipur overcome its challenges and build a prosperous future for all its inhabitants.
A box to receive weapons taken during ethnic clashes and rioting is placed in Imphal, capital of the northeastern Indian state of Manipur, Thursday, June 22, 2023. (Image Credit: AP/Altaf Qadri)
There are many ethnic groups in Manipur, which we’ll discuss in detail later. That’s why in March, many tribals protested peacefully against the government’s decision. When I say tribals, I’m talking about the Naga and Kuki tribes, but the government of Manipur said that this protest is unconstitutional. The government said that it’s not at fault. It conducted a land survey of a protected forest region in Manipur. The government of Manipur said that their protest is unconstitutional and many villagers are using the forest land for their drug business. The land survey included three districts. One of them was Churachandpur district.
After this, some tribal leaders announced a 8-hour shutdown, in Churachandpur district. Before the shutdown, the chief minister, Biren Singh, was going to inaugurate a gym and address a rally, but many protesters broke the gym and threw chairs in the venue of the rally. Despite this, Biren Singh didn’t stop his rally. Then, the protesters tried to enter the venue of the rally where many VIPs were sitting. Thereafter, the police and protesters clashed. After this, the government imposed a curfew on the entire district and shut down mobile services for 5 days. This frustrated the locals, but this decision to remove the villagers was just one issue. The government was about to face another issue. The All Tribal Students Union Manipur appealed to the people for a Tribal Solidarity March.
They were opposing an order by the Manipur High Court which said that the Manipur government asks the central government, to give the Meiteis the status of a Scheduled Tribe. The people of Hill, the Naga and Kuki Tribes, don’t want the Meiteis to get the Scheduled Tribe status. The Meiteis have been demanding the Scheduled Tribe status since 2013. The Meiteis believe that their community needs the Scheduled Tribe status to protect their land and culture. They say that illegal immigrants from Bangladesh and Myanmar are harming the identity and culture of the Meiteis. The Meiteis say that if they get the Scheduled Tribe status, the Naga and Kuki Tribes won’t be harmed.
Instead, it will bring peace to Manipur, but the tribals of Hill, the Nagas and Kukis, don’t agree with this. The tribes of Hill say that the Meiteis are powerful, well-educated, and connected. If they get the Scheduled Tribe status, the political and economic power of the people of Hill will be diminished in Manipur. The tribes of Hill claim that the Legislative Assembly of Manipur has around two-thirds seats of Meiteis. If they have such political power, why do they need the Scheduled Tribes status? They also claim that some sections of the Meitei community have the Scheduled Caste and OBC status. So, they get protection from there as well. The language of the Meiteis, Manipuri, is also included in the 8th Schedule of the Constitution.
The tribes of Hill also claim that if the Meiteis get the Scheduled Tribes status, they’ll have to fight for the remaining jobs. These are the two issues that are responsible for the recent violence. The tribes of Hill claim that the Manipur government is kicking out the Kuki tribal people from their homes and will soon give the Meiteis the Scheduled Tribes status. This is why a few days ago, violence broke out in the tribal protest rally when the rumor spread that the Meiteis had attacked a tribal woman.
The rally started with this rumor and then the violence spread throughout the state. TV channels showed pictures of how the Meiteis and the tribals were burning houses. This is why the Indian Army was called to the state. The army and Assam Rifles were deployed to control the situation in the state. But you won’t understand the complexity of these issues until you understand the complex history of Manipur. So let’s go back hundreds of years to understand who Manipur belongs to.
People hold placards during a protest over sexual violence against women and for peace in the ongoing ethnic violence in India’s north-eastern state of Manipur, in Ahmedabad on July 20, 2023. (Photo by Sam PANTHAKY / AFP) (Photo by SAM PANTHAKY/AFP via Getty Images)
Manipur’s history begins with the Meitei people, who ruled the Manipur Valley for centuries. It’s said that the Meiteis came to Manipur Valley from Myanmar, where they settled their kingdom. Many Meitei kings ruled Manipur and expanded their kingdom. Apart from the Meitei people, there were many hill tribes in Manipur, like the Nagas and the Kukis. These tribes lived in the mountains of Manipur and had their own culture, language, and tradition. The Meitei Kingdom had a complex relationship with the hill tribes. The Meitei Kingdom launched many military campaigns against the tribes. The tribes of the hills were pressured to adopt the Meitei culture, language, and religion.
If we go back in history, the Meiteis did this to expand their kingdom. To expand their kingdom, the Meiteis believed that they must pressurize the tribes. This led to violence between the Hill Tribes and the Meitei Kingdom. But! this story isn’t all black and white. There are instances where the Meitei Kingdom formed alliances with the Hill Tribes, so that they could trade with each other. The Meitei Kingdom would get forest goods from the tribes, while the Meitei Kingdom would give protection to the tribes from outsiders, but this changed in the years 1819-1825, when the Burmese Empire invaded Manipur.
The Burmese Empire defeated the Meitei Kingdom, and the Meiteis were made to adopt the Burmese culture and Buddhism. The Hill Tribes had to suffer the same fate. The Burmese rulers launched several military campaigns against the Hill Tribes, which killed the tribal people and destroyed their villages. This went on for 7 years, which is why this period is called the Seven Years’ Destruction. This lasted until 1826, when the First Anglo-Burmese War broke out, where the British defeated the Burmese Kingdom and took control of Manipur.
After the British came to power, the Manipur society underwent political and economic changes. In 1835, the British formed a political agency in Manipur and upgraded it in 1891, making Manipur a full princely state.
Now, there’s a difference between a political agency and a princely state. In a princely state, the British told the kings to take care of their kingdom and they had to pay the British for it. Whereas in a political agency, the British sent a political agent, who was the king’s advisor, but the king didn’t have any power. He was like a puppet in the hands of the British. Initially, the British took control of the Meiteis Kingdom, but the Hill Tribes were given the free reigns by the British. This also changed gradually, and then a very popular policy of the British started –Divide and Rule!
The British created a political structure where the Meiteis were preferred. This created tensions between the Hill Tribes and the Meiteis. The British created a land settlement policy to decide which group would acquire a certain part of the land. So they gave some land to the Meiteis and some to the Kukis, but there were two problems. The first problem was that the Kukis were tribal people. They didn’t have a single land. They went to different places with their animals.
So when they were told that their land was permanent, they couldn’t follow their culture. The second problem was that the British gave more fertile land to the Meiteis and less fertile land to the Kukis. This created tensions between the Meiteis and the Hill Tribes, and this didn’t stop even after India’s independence.
There is another twist in this story. This time, the British were not the enemies. It was the Indian government. This is Maharaja Bhodhchandra Singh, who was the king of Manipur after independence. In 1891, the British made Manipur a princely state. After India’s independence, the king had to decide whether Manipur would go with India, Pakistan, or remain independent. Maharaja Bhodhchandra Singh decided that Manipur would remain independent. Manipur was very strategic for the Indian government because Manipur was on the border between Myanmar and China.
The Indian government was also afraid that a communist movement was about to start in Manipur, which could instigate instability in India. So it was very important for the Indian government that Manipur didn’t remain independent but become a part of India, and India was successful in this. In 1949, Manipur signed a merger agreement that made Manipur a union territory instead of a state. But there’s a twist to the story. Before the agreement was signed, many people in Manipur had been protesting against the king because they didn’t want a monarchy in their state. That’s why a legislative assembly was formed, but when the king signed the merger agreement, he didn’t seek permission from the legislative assembly.
Instead, many Manipuris say that the king signed the merger agreement under pressure. It’s said that when the king went to Shillong in 1949 to talk to the Assam government, he was arrested and kept in custody until he signed the merger agreement. Many ethnic groups in Manipur were not happy with this. The problem was that after the merger, Manipur was run by the central government. For the first 25 years, Manipur wasn’t a full state. It was a union territory. So the Indian bureaucrats ruled Manipur, who weren’t from Manipur but from other parts of India.
Another problem was that different communities had different aspirations. The Naga tribe wanted some parts of Manipur, Assam, and Arunachal Pradesh to be merged into Nagaland. The Kukis wanted areas of India, Bangladesh, and Myanmar with Kuki domination to be a separate country called Zale’n-gam. The Kukis wanted Kukiland, the Nagas wanted Nagalim.
The problem was that some areas were common to both. The Meiteis didn’t want either. They believed that for centuries, the Meiteis ruled the Manipur area, which also had hill regions. So they wanted the hill regions, where the Kukis and Nagas were, to be part of Manipur, where the Meiteis ruled.
What did the Indian government do? They came up with a solution that displeased everyone. They made Manipur a Union Territory, and revoked the Scheduled Tribe status given to the Meiteis. The Indian government argued that if Manipur was dominated by the Meiteis, why would they want the status? They also told the Meiteis that they couldn’t buy land in the hill regions. The Indian government gave the Kukis and Nagas the Scheduled Tribe status. And said that they could buy land anywhere in Manipur. It’s said that a solution that displeases everyone is a pragmatic solution. But this solution didn’t solve all the problems.
In 1972, Manipur was made a state from a union territory. In the same year, the first elections were held in Manipur, and there was a problem with these elections. Manipur has 60 constituencies, 40 of them are in the Meitei-dominated valley area and 20 in the hill region. This means that it’s easier for the Meiteis to win power. This is why the chief minister of Manipur is from the Meitei community, and the tribal people of the hill region believe that this is why Manipur’s policies are against them. For example, the recent decision where the government asked the Kuki villagers to evacuate their land. The tribal people also say that they’re discriminated against.
For example, the leaders of the Meitei community have called the Kukis refugees. But the Kukis say that they’re not refugees in Manipur. They’ve been living in the hill areas of Manipur for centuries, so how are they refugees? In 1979, Meiteilon language was made the official language of Manipur, which is written in Bengali script and is used by the Meitei communities. It’s not like only the Meitei people speak this language. Many tribal people also use this language, but because of the Bengali script, they can’t read and write it well. So in the 1980s, when the government made the language compulsory till class 10, the Manipur tribals were not happy with it. Because of these examples, they believe that the Meiteis are discriminating against them. But the Meiteis say that they’re discriminated against too! A Meitei leader said that in 60 years, their population has fallen from 59% to 44%. He says that they’ve become outsiders in their own ancestral land.
While the tribals can buy their lands, they can’t buy the lands of tribals. The Meiteis argue that they need an inner-line permit system in their state. A system similar to the one in Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, and Nagaland. Let me tell you what this system is about; The Meiteis say that they’re fed up with illegal migration. Because of this, their population percentage has decreased in Manipur. So why not create a system where a person who isn’t from Manipur needs a permit to enter Manipur? The hill tribes say that the Meiteis have the power in Manipur.
Many Meitei leaders have said that the Kukis are the refugees. Who knows, maybe the Meiteis will say that the Kukis will also need a permit to enter the Manipur valley. Because the tribes don’t trust the Meiteis, they don’t want to implement this system. Many times, the Meiteis tried to make a law about this, but the Indian president rejected it. Because of this, the Meiteis came up with a different strategy. They said that they want the government to give them the Scheduled Tribe Status, the same status that the Meiteis had before 1949. The tribes of the Hill region say that they don’t need Scheduled Tribe Status when they have their own domination in the state.
Because of these issues, the Meiteis and the Hill tribes keep clashing with each other. Because both groups believe that if one group benefits from a policy, the other group will suffer. Do you know what this tension between these groups results in? These are two national highways, NH2 and NH37, which connects Manipur to other parts of India, but these are not just two highways. They are ways to earn money. The group that has influence over the highways, uses them to earn illegal taxes. You must pay the group to move goods from one place to another across this highway. Do you know who gets this money? The insurgent groups.
Every ethnic community has an insurgent group. For example, there are several insurgent groups for the Kukis. They say that they protect their own people. Like the Kuki Commando Force, the Kuki National Army, the Kuki National Organization, Kuki Front Council, Kuki Independent Army, Chin Kuki Revolutionary Force, and Kuki Defense Force. Nagas also have insurgent groups, like NSCN (IM). Manipur is so complex that you’d think that Nagas and Kukis are from the Hill Tribes. They must have lived together in peace, fighting the Meiteis. But that’s not true.
There’s been a lot of violence between them. For example, in the 1990s, thousands of people were killed in Naga and Kuki clashes. Because NSCN (IM) Naga insurgents targeted Kukis in the villages where Nagas were the majority. Because they wanted to unite all the Nagas of North East India to build Nagaland. Whereas, KNA and KNF Kuki groups targeted Nagas.
Many people might comment that I have just pointed out the problems but barely discussed the solutions. This problem is very complex, but I believe that we can solve any inter-group conflict through economic factors.
To consider, in 2002, when there was a riot in Gujarat, there was a lot of violence in Ahmedabad, but not in Surat. There was a reason behind this. Hindus and Muslims worked together in Surat. Hindus ran businesses, and Muslims were the workers, but this wasn’t the case in Ahmedabad. Both communities were divided in Ahmedabad.
So, imagine if you’re a Hindu, but your workers are Muslims. If your workers are attacked, what will happen to your business the next day? You’ll pay a price. That’s why researchers say that economic needs can reduce violence between groups. The Manipur and Indian governments need to come up with a similar solution that will make all the communities of Manipur economically interdependent. Obviously, it’s easier said than done. The solution is difficult, but we can at least take a step forward.
मित्रों याद करो जब राजीनीती के आधुनिक चाणक्य श्री अमित शाह ने अनुच्छेद ३७० और ३५अ को जड़ से मिटाने का अभियान शुरु किया तो, मेहबूबा मुफ़्ती उन सभी विपक्षियों में सबसे आगे आगे कूद रही थी जो इस जानदार और शानदार कदम का विरोध कर रही थी।
ये वही मेहबूबा मुफ़्ती है, जो रैलियों में चीख चीख कर कह रही थी कि “यदि ३७० हटा, तो तिरंगे को कोई हाथ लगाने वाला भी नहीं मिलेगा”! ये मेहबूबा मुफ़्ती का परिवारिक अहंकार था जो जम्मू कश्मीर को अपने बाप की जागीर मान कर चलने की आदी हो चुकी थी। इसी मेहबूबा मुफ़्ती के गृह मंत्री बनते हि “कश्मीर के आतंकियों के हौसले इतने बुलंद हो गये कि उन्होंने “रालीव गालिव चालीव” का अपने कू संस्कारों से भरा नारा देकर कश्मीर में हिन्दुओं का कत्लेआम मचा दिया और तो और उन्हें रातो रात कश्मीर छोड़ने को विवश कर दिया।
और उस समय ये मेहबूबा मुफ़्ती अपने बाप को मिले राजसुख का आनंद ले रही थी। खैर भूतकाल की बात करेंगे तो इनके अनगिनत पाप सामने आ जाएंगे और “रईस मट्टू” का संदेश पीछे छूट जायेगा।
आप सोच रहे होंगे की ये रईस मट्टू कौन है? और स्वतन्त्रता दिवस पर इसकी चर्चा क्यों हो रही है, तो मित्रों आइये इस “रईस मट्टू और उसके हाथ में तिरंगा” का विश्लेषण करते हैँ:-
जैसा की आप जानते हैँ कि इस्लामिक चरमपंथियों का एक हैवानियत फैलाने वाला आतंकी संगठन है, जिसका नाम है “हिजबुल मुजाहिदिन”। ये आतंकी संगठन पिछले कई वर्षो से घाटी में आतंकवाद की घटनाये करता चला आ रहा है।हिज़बुल मुजाहिदीन अप्रैल, १९९० में अस्तित्व में आया एक अलगाववादी आतंकवादी संगठन है। इसका गठन मुहम्मद एहसान डार ने किया था। दिनांक १७ अक्टूबर २०१६ को जम्मू-कश्मीर में ज़ाकिर मूसा को हिज़्बुल का नया कमांडर बनाया। ये बुरहान वानी की मौत के बाद उसकी जगह नया कमांडर बनाया गया।/जी हाँ मित्रों वही “बुरहान वानी” जो पाकिस्तान का हीरो और भारत के कुछ राजीनीतिक पार्टियों के लिए एक जिंदादिल युवा था।
भारत, संयुक्त राज्य और यूरोपीय संघ द्वारा इस संगठन को आतंकवादी माना गया है।
इसी आतंकवादी संगठन से जुड़ा हुआ है “जावेद मट्टू” जो पाकिस्तान के आँखों का तारा बना हुआ है। जावेद मट्टू का ब्रेन वाश करके उसे हिजबूल का एक खूंखार आतंकी बना दिया है पाकिस्तान के ISI और अन्य आतंकियों ने। आजकल यह पाकिस्तान की गोद में बैठकर भारत को तोड़ने के सपने पाले हुए योजनाये बना रहा है। और मित्रों इसी जावेद मट्टू का भाई है रईस मट्टू जिसने ना केवल १५ अगस्त २०२३ को अपने घर पर तिरंगा लहराया अपितु अपने भाई से भी भूल सुधार कर घर वापसी की अपील की।
आपकों बताते चले की कश्मीर घाटी के सोपोर में वर्ष २००९ से सक्रिय लश्कर आतंकी जावेद अहमद मट्टू के भाई रईस अहमद मट्टू का एक वीडियो सोशल मीडिया पर वायरल हुआ है। इसमें आप देख सकते है कि रईस अपने घर पर शान से तिरंगा लहराते नजर आ रहे हैं। रईस मट्टू ने समाचार न्यूज एजेंसी एएनआई को बताया कि उन्होंने किसी के दबाव में नहीं बल्कि अपने दिल से तिरंगा लहराया है। यह उनकी सोच है। वे युवाओं को यही पैगाम देना चाहते हैं। उन्होंने कहा कि वह हिंदुस्तानी थे, हिंदुस्तानी हैं और हमेशा हिंदुस्तानी रहेंगे।
सोचिये मित्रों अनुच्छेद ३७० के मिट जाने के पश्चात, कितना खूबसूरत बदलाव हुआ है और इस परिवर्तन का असर और प्रभाव इतना है कि एक खूंखार आतंकवादी का भाई भी अपने घर पर बड़े शान से तिरंगा लहराते हुए अपने भाई से मुख्य धारा में लौट आने की अपील कर रहा है। कश्मीर के वर्तमान परिदृश्य को देखते हुए उसके अंदर ये विश्वाश उत्पन्न हुआ है।
१:- आज एक कश्मीरी जब श्रीनगर के लाल चौक पर शान से तिरंगे को लहराते देखता है, तो उसका खोया आत्मविश्वास वापस लौट आता है और वो अपने आप को जम्मू कश्मीर और लद्दाख के विकास में योगदान देने से नहीं रोक पाता;
२:- आज जब कांग्रेसी युवराज “भारत जोड़ो” यात्रा श्रीनगर के सड़कों से होता हुआ, लाल चौक तक लेकर जाता है और उसे किसी भी प्रकार के गोली, बम और अन्य बारूदी हथियारों की आवाज़ नहीं सुनाई देती तो वाह विश्वाश करने को विवश हो जाता है कि, कश्मीर अब परिवर्तित हो चुका है।
३:- जब कांग्रेसी युवराज और उनकी बहन कश्मीर के बर्फीली वादियों में बिना किसी खौफ के बच्चों की भांति खेलते हैँ एक दूसरे के ऊपर बर्फ का गोला बना के फेंकते हैँ और खुशी से तालियां बजाते उछलते हैँ, तो वह दृश्य अद्भुत होता है;
४:- जब कश्मीर की डल झील में कस्तियाँ फिर से पर्यटकों के साथ अठखेलियाँ करती हैँ तो उनके मालिकों के चेहरों पर खिली मुस्कान और संतोष का भाव असीम सुख का अनुभव कराता है;
५:- आज जम्मू, कश्मीर और लद्दाख का युवा आतंकवाद के बारे में नहीं अपितु अपने भविष्य और कैरियर के बारे में सोचता है और उसी के अनुसार योजनाबद्ध तरिके से सरकार के सहयोग से स्वर्णिम भविष्य के पथ का अनुगामी बन रहा है;
६:- जम्मू, कश्मीर और लद्दाख में विकसित हो रहे इंफ्रास्ट्रक्चर ने उनकी विवशता से भरे जीवन को सुगमता और सरलता रूपी जीवन में ढाल दिया है;
७:- आज जम्मू, कश्मीर और लद्दाख में किये जा रहे भारी निवेश से उसकी अर्थव्यबस्था को विश्वसनीय मजबूती मिली है;
८:- आज वंहा का आम नागरिक चाहे वो दुकानदार हो, या अन्य प्रकार का व्यवसायी हो, चिकित्सक हो या इंजीनियर हो या अधिवक्ता हो, मजदूर हो या किसान हो, निर्धन हो या धनवान हो, जनता चाहे किसी भी स्तर पे जीवन यापन कर रही हो, जम्मू, कश्मीर और लद्दाख में हो रहे अमूलचूल परिवर्तन ने सबको उत्साहित कर दिया है। अब सब अपने अपने भविष्य के प्रति आशावान और खुश दिखलाई पड़ रहे हैँ।
९:- आज भारतीय जम्मू, कश्मीर और लद्दाख में हो रहे विकास को देख नापाक पाकिस्तान के कब्जे में फंसा दूसरा भाग तड़प रहा है, विचलित हो रहा है और अपने ऊपर शुकर भक्षी जिन्ना द्वारा थोपे गये श्राप से मुक्ति हेतु छटपटा रहा है;
१०:- जम्मू, कश्मीर और लद्दाख के गली गली, सडक सडक, चौराहे, तिराहे और दो राहे और हर घर पर लहरा रहा तिरंगा इस तथ्य को साबित करता है कि “मेहबूबा” तुम हि गलत थी, गलत हो और सदैव गलत रहोगी”!
आज एक कश्मीरी नागरिक और जावेद मट्टू जैसे खूंखार आतंकी के अपने सगे भाई ने तिरंगा लहराकर , “मेहबूबा” तुम्हें झूठा साबित कर दिया।
आज जिस प्रकार और जिस शान से तिरंगा रैली निकली है, उसे देखकर, मेहबूबा सहित ना जाने कितने नेताओं के सीने पर सांप लोट रहा होगा, जो खाते तो भारत का है पर इनका दिल पाकिस्तान के लिए धड़कता है।
ऐसे में जिस प्रकार एक आतंकवादी के भाई के हाथ ने तिरंगा उठा लिया और जिस प्रकार कई अलगाववादी नेताओं ने तिरंगे को अपने सीने से लगाकर लाल चौक पर लहराया और “भारत माता की जय” तथा “वन्दे मातरम ” के पवित्र नारे लगाए, उसने साबित कर दिया की यदि लक्ष्य स्पष्ट हो और इरादे नेक हो तो प्रकृति पूरे दम खम से उसका साथ देने को तत्पर हो जाती है, इसलिए हे मेहबूबा तुम तो झूठी निकली।
यस्मिन् देशे वयं जन्मधारणं कुर्मः स हि अस्माकं देशः जन्मभूमिः वा भवति । जननी इव जन्मभूमिः पूज्या आदरणीया च भवति । अस्याः यशः सर्वेषां देशवसिनां यशः भवति । अस्याः गौरवेण एव देशवसिनां गौरवम् भवति । ये जनाः स्वाभ्युदयार्थ देशस्याहितं कुर्वन्ति ते अधमाः सन्ति । देशभक्तिः सर्वासु भक्तिषु श्रेष्ठा कथ्यते । अनया एव देशस्य स्वतंत्रतायाः रक्षा भवति । अनया एव प्रेरिताः बहवः देशभक्ताः भगत सिंघः, चन्द्रशेखर आजाद प्रभृतयः आत्मोत्सर्गम् अकुर्वन् । झाँसीश्वरी लक्ष्मीबाई, राणाप्रताप मेवाड़केसरि, शिववीरः च प्रमुखाः देशभक्ताः अस्माकं देश जाता । देशभक्तिः व्यक्ति-समाज -देशकल्याणार्थ परमम् औषधम् अस्ति ।
अर्थात:-जिस देश में हमलोग जन्म लेते हैं वही देश हमारा जन्मभूमि होता है । माता और मातृभूमि पूजनीय और आदरणीय होता है । इसके यश से ही पुरे देशवाशियों का यश होता है । इसके गौरव से ही सभी देशवासियों का गौरव होता है । जो लोग अपने उदय के लिए देश का हित करते हैं, वो अधम है । देशभक्ति सभी भक्तियों में श्रेष्ठ कहा जाता है । इस से देश की स्वतंत्रता की रक्षा होती है । देशभक्ति से प्रेरित लोग जैसे भगत सिंह, चन्द्रशेखर आजाद आदि अपना वलिदान दे दिए । हमारे देश में झाँसी की लक्ष्मीबाई मेवाड़ के राणाप्रताप आदि देशभक्त हुए । देशभक्ति व्यक्ति, समाज और देश के कल्याण के लिए औषध(दवा) के समान है ।
पर मेहबूबा तुम यह नहीं समझ सकती, क्योंकि तुम्हारे अंदर बस वो नहीं है, जो हम सब में है अपने देश के प्रति। भारत माता की जय। वंदेमातरम।
India gained freedom in 1947. Every Indian undertook a pledge that day to free the country from poverty, deprivation, inequality and exploitation. Cut to 2022 – how much is our country free? That is difficult to answer.
But one thing has definitely gained freedom i.e., political rhetoric – amidst the many promises political candidates make at podiums, in manifestos and before elections, one problem that has gained attraction is the PROMISE OF FREEBIES.
Freebies are lucrative offers that aim to provide utility services like water, electricity etc. and other public goods for free; something that sounds like a supermarket offer ‘Free Free Free- Iss Se Sasta Aur Achcha Kahin Nahin’. Well you may be making citizens’ life ‘Sasta’ but definitely not ‘Accha’!
“Nothing is free. Everything has to be paid for. For every profit in one thing, payment in some other thing.” –TED HUGHES
Anything that’s given free to someone must be paid by someone at some point. This is a dangerous trend that is only aggravating with time. States and leaders are providing bicycles, smartphones, electricity, LPG etc. for free to certain sections with the aim of welfare. The motive displayed behind these initiatives is upliftment of deprived sections but results may backfire.
They claim the reason for freebies is welfare but is this welfare going to be sustainable? What happens when people are made to live their lives on products and services that are simply given to them and that are not earned. How can we reach the goal of self reliant India if the citizens are habituated of charity.
Having said so, to completely reject the idea of freebies will also be a grave mistake as some of the poor sections maybe in dire need of it but what explains distribution of freebies to those who don’t require them.
Delhi government made bus travel free for all women as a step towards women security. How is pricing of the tickets related to security? For security, we need to reform the filthy patriarchal society and freebies can do very little in such matters. Instead it robs the state of important money that these women commuters could have contributed.
Behaviorally, humans tend to waste or carelessly use resources that they have not paid for. Unfortunately we tend to value only that what has been earned by our own money and feel it okay to squander that we have just received for free as happened in Punjab where free electricity has led to enormous extraction of groundwater, significantly depleting water reserves of the state.
Also this goes against the self-respect of a human being. Citizens of India are amply capable of earning so they must be provided means to do so rather than luring them into such attractive offers, slowly killing their capabilities, reducing them to state of helplessness and making them want free gifts all their lives.
If freebies are justified today, for how long can they be dragged? Government needs revenue to run the country and if resources continue to be mindlessly distributed for free who will fill the national treasury?
15th finance commission chairperson NK Singh has clearly pointed out that if States continue to roll out freebies the country can witness sub-national bankruptcy.
SEWA (Self-Employed Women Association)- one of the first self help groups in India was built on this principle: Poor don’t need Charity; they need an enabling mechanism to strive and come out of vicious cycle of poverty and vulnerability. This mentality needs to be bred and one way of doing so is to exercise our vote judiciously by rejecting free offers and electing pro-development candidates.
Manipur is a small state located in the northeastern part of the country. The region has a history of law and order issues since long. Political instability, economic issues, volatile security, ethnic strife, social issues etc continues to dominate Manipur even today.
The year 2017 heralded a change when the first BJP Government came to power in the state. Many expected that the new dispensation will bring about a qualitative change in the life of the people, who were already reeling under a crisis due to an economic blockade, internet shutdown, law and order issue, that was going on in Manipur back in 2016-end. The reason for that crisis was manifold.
Point to be noted here is that the genesis of that crisis was due to the demand by the valley-based community that an ILP(Inner Line Permit to regulate the entry of Indian citizens to Manipur) be implemented in the state which was vociferously opposed by hills-based tribal community. The then Congress government in the state obliged to the demand of the valley-based community and implemented a slew of controversial bills, including one that set a cut-off year of 1951 to identity “outsiders”.
Some unpopular decisions relating to re-organisation of various districts in the state were also taken which angered many in the tribal community. Although the bills were ultimately rejected by the Central Government, a political storm had set-off that resulted in a series of violent events that paralysed the state for many months.
It was after these unfortunate events that the new government under the leadership of N. Biren Singh was sworn in, who took many important decisions during his first tenure, that resulted in finding a solution to many burning issues of the time. Initiatives such as “Go to Hills”, “Go to Villages” were successful in bridging the gap between the hills and valley people.
The issue of territorial integrity in Manipur is an emotive one. It evokes a strong reaction from the valley people whenever there is a talk of partitioning the state. The state has seen violent agitation back in June, 2001 on the issue. Back in 2019 also there were rumours that the Government of India has decided to finally sign a deal with the NSCN-IM that would eventually lead to the creation of a ‘Greater Nagaland’ by carving out Naga-dominated areas of Manipur and merging it with the existing state of Nagaland. It also led to law and order issues in the state back then. However, the government has, till date, not signed any accord with the NSCN-IM or any other Naga political groups.
Come 2023 and we see Manipur reeling under severe ethnic violence which started after ATSUM(All Tribals’ Students Union Manipur) carried out rallies in tribal areas opposing the High Court judgment that endorsed valley people’s demand for inclusion in the Scheduled Tribe(ST) list. The intensity of violence is such(and is ongoing) that the fighting sides are baying for each others’ blood and mercilessly slaughtering civilians on each side.
Hundreds of homes, shops have been burned, thousands displaced from their homes, educational institutions have been shut and economic activity in the state has all but collapsed. Even elected representatives and their residences have not been spared.
The demand by valley-based people for inclusion in the ST list has been going on since long( which has been continuously opposed by hills-based tribal people). Their argument for inclusion is that they are doing it for saving their own race which is on the verge of extinction due to dwindling population. Tribals oppose this and argue that the valley-based people don’t have such a bleak future; that the valley people want to occupy their land, jobs, resources, etc in the garb of obtaining ST status.
Such mistrust and distrust between the hill people and the valley people became the breeding ground for the ethnic strife that the state finds itself in today. The situation has escalated to such an extent that 10 elected members of State Assembly have demanded separate administration for the community which they represent.
Moreover, the government is finding it very difficult to bring law and order into the state. Various valley-based and hill-based civil society organisations are adding political colour to the current crisis based on their own convenience, which is further aggravating the crisis and adding to the woes of common people.
The government is definitely walking a tightrope on this grave situation. Any miscalculation can lead to a totally unwanted outcome. Whatever decision(s) the government may take, it must consult all the stakeholders before arriving at a conclusion.
Government’s current efforts to resolve the crisis have found no takers amongst the masses. It’s time that an out-of-the-box solution to the crisis is brought about which satisfies the aspirations of all sides and brings peace in the region.
In the existing political climate, it is necessary to give voters the information they need to make decisions that go beyond partisanship. Voters now find it more challenging to get fair information and form their own conclusions due to the growth of social media and the growing polarisation of political discourse.
Partisanship often restricts critical thinking and clouds judgement. Voters frequently identify with a specific party, mindlessly supporting its politicians and policies without taking into account competing viewpoints or impartially assessing their worth.
Voters need access to tools and resources that promote independent thought and well-informed decision-making to confound this issue. This includes developing an open conversation that accommodates other points of view, encouraging fact-checking, and promoting media literacy.
Additionally, programmes that foster education can have a big influence on the empowerment of voters. Civic education can aid people in critically analysing political communications by enlightening them on how to do so, as well as in assessing candidates by scrutinizing their backgrounds, perspectives on critical subjects, and track records rather than just their affiliation with a particular party.
Also, political leaders must put accountability and openness first. Politicians may help people make better-informed decisions based on truths rather than rhetoric or partisan bias by making information about their policies, actions, and financing sources easily accessible.
In closing, facilitating voters to make informed decisions liberated of their partisan loyalties is crucial for the survival of democracy. By nurturing independent thinking, media literacy, civic education, and political clarity, we can foster a climate where citizens have the skills necessary to engage with politics critically and actively partake in determining their future.
The tax laws in India are known to be complex and have been ranked as the second most complex tax jurisdiction in the Asia-Pacific region. This complexity can have a number of negative consequences, including making it difficult for taxpayers to comply with the law, increasing the cost of compliance for businesses, and leading to disputes between taxpayers and the tax authorities.
There are a number of factors that contribute to the complexity of the Indian tax laws.
First, the Indian tax system is based on a number of different statutes, including the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act, 2017, and the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. This can make it difficult to keep track of all the different rules and regulations that apply.
Second, the Indian tax laws are constantly being amended, which can make it difficult to stay up-to-date on the latest changes. In the past five years alone, the Income Tax Act has been amended over 100 times. This can make it difficult for taxpayers to know which version of the law applies to them.
Third, the Indian tax laws are often interpreted differently by different tax authorities, which can lead to uncertainty and disputes. For example, there have been a number of cases where the Supreme Court of India has had to rule on the interpretation of the Income Tax Act.
Fourth, the Indian tax laws are not always clear and unambiguous, which can make it difficult to determine how they apply in a particular situation. For example, the Income Tax Act contains a number of provisions that are open to interpretation, such as the definition of “business” and the meaning of “income”.
The complexity of the Indian tax laws can have a number of negative consequences.
First, it can make it difficult for taxpayers to comply with the law. This can lead to penalties and interest charges for taxpayers who make mistakes.
Second, the complexity of the tax laws can increase the cost of compliance for businesses. Businesses need to hire accountants and lawyers to help them understand and comply with the tax laws. This can be a significant expense for businesses, especially small businesses.
Third, the complexity of the tax laws can lead to disputes between taxpayers and the tax authorities. This can be a time-consuming and expensive process for both taxpayers and the tax authorities.
There have been a number of attempts to simplify the Indian tax laws, but these efforts have been met with limited success. The complexity of the Indian tax laws is a complex problem with no easy solutions. However, there are a number of things that can be done to improve the situation, such as:
* Consolidating the different tax statutes into a single, comprehensive law.
* Streamlining the tax filing process.
* Clarifying the tax laws and providing more guidance to taxpayers.
* Improving the training of tax officials.
The complexity of the Indian tax laws is a major challenge for taxpayers, businesses, and the government. However, there are a number of things that can be done to improve the situation. By taking steps to simplify the tax laws, the government can make it easier for taxpayers to comply with the law, reduce the cost of compliance, and promote economic growth.
