Reimagining Jawaharlal Nehru today would involve examining his legacy
and contributions in the context of the present day. Nehru, the first Prime
Minister of India, played a crucial role in shaping the country's political,
economic, and social landscape after its independence in 1947. While we
reimagine today presuming he was here we shall have to look at our
parliamentary democracy and the core policy issues which have undergone so much
of change that he would disown. The idea is to speak about some of the critical
concerns we face as a nation through the Nehruvian lens.
Speaker:
Prof Manoj K Jha, who is a National Spokesperson of
the Rashtriya Janata Dal, (RJD), and a Member of Parliament in Rajya Sabha is a
leading voice of the opposition.
A consistent votary of the idea of social justice
and a strong opponent of the politics of majoritarian authoritarianism, his
debates and interventions in the Upper House of the Parliament are appreciated
across the political spectrum and are widely watched.
Prof Jha, is a very popular teacher in the Delhi
University, was also head of the Department of Social Work, Delhi University,
for a few years.
Democracy Dialogues Lecture Series (Online ) Organised by New Socialist Initiative
Special Lecture
Topic:'Science as a Cultural Ideal
Speaker:Dr. Ravi Sinha
Date and Time: 26 March 2023 at 6 PM (IST).
This
will be a Zoom meeting which will also be live streamed at Facebook, Please
send an email at democracydialogues@gmail.com if you would like to have the
zoom link.
Despite
frequent misgivings about universal claims of modern science and despite it
being taken often as an accomplice of western imperialism, it is impossible for
any culture or civilization to avoid science or to create a culturally distinct
version of it. And yet, how does science seep into and reshape a culture would
have as many answers as there are cultures. The example of the West is
invariably taken as canonical wherein science appears as a key factor in
triggering the Great Divergence catapulting Western Europe in pole position ahead
of far advanced civilizations such as China or India. It is far more tractable
to draw some approximately generalizable lessons from this example than to
comprehensively answer the famous Needham Question about why the rest of the
world missed out on the Scientific Revolution and the subsequent percolation,
even if partial and fragmentary, of the cognitive values promoted by science
into the layers of cultural values.
Yet,
the fact remains that the cultures and the civilization on the Subcontinent are
irreducibly distinct from the West and also from the rest of the world. It is
not possible to draw out serviceable prescriptions just from the western
example for cultivating science in the cultural soil of the Subcontinent. It
will be necessary to cast a bird’s eye-view on the civilizational contours of
this vast land to have some idea about what have been the obstacles in the past
and what possible pathways to future are available in the present.
While
the right-wing of the Hindutva kind seeks glory in ancient India and considers
the arrival of Islam as the despoiler of a great civilization, the left-wing,
both of the liberal and the leftist kinds, puts all the blame at the doors of
colonialism. Both miss out, in their respective ways, a very large fact. The
thickest layer of the mass cultural soil on the subcontinent was deposited
during the millennium between the 7th and the 17th century and in this the
Bhakti Movement played the most important role. If in Europe the theological
debates and religious wars led to modern philosophy and modern science, in
India the philosophical debates, such as in the Upanishads and between the
Buddhists and the Sanatanis, led to devotional movements of mass religions and
theologies.
After
sketching out these broad contours I will conclude this talk by making some
tentative suggestions about how to seek pathways to a future in which science
can attain the status of a cultural ideal, which in turn may facilitate
emergence of an Indian modernity worthy of a glorious civilization.
About
the Speaker :
Ravi
Sinha is an activist-scholar who has been associated with progressive movements
for nearly four decades. Trained as a theoretical physicist, Dr. Ravi has a
doctoral degree from MIT, Cambridge, USA. He worked as a physicist at
University of Maryland, College Park, USA, at Physical Research Laboratory,
Ahmedabad and at Gujarat University, Ahmedabad before resigning from the job to
devote himself full time to organizing and theorizing. He is the principal
author of the book, Globalization of Capital, published in 1997, co-founder of
the Hindi journal, Sandhan, and one of the founders and a leading member of New
Socialist Initiative.
The 22th lecture in the Democracy Dialogues
series was delivered by Professor Harbans Mukhia on 15 January
2023where he spoke on "Democracy’s Structural Slippages and the
Indian Experiment"
Topic: Democracy’s Structural Slippages and the Indian Experiment
Conceptualised as the devolution of sovereign power from monarchy or oligarchy to the common people, the devolution was institutionalised through periodic elections with universal adult franchise that would make governments accountable to the electorate, the people. Perfect imaginary for the implementation of the concept, for equality was its basic premise with the individual at its heart. It thus subsumed earlier experiments in equality which had masses of people as the premise.
However, the imaginary contains several slippages. First, its progress itself through halting stages created massive inequalities in the exercise of power. Second, most important, at its final, universal stage, its equivalence with the electoral process leaves huge spaces for almost universal ‘minority rule’ legitimized through elections and therefore unequal distribution of power. At any rate, the difference between majority and minority is merely mechanical and therefore open to debate.
In India, on one hand, the Constitution introduced the most modern version of democracy through universal adult franchise and multi-party elections; on the other, it was operationalised through the mobilisation of essentially pre-modern identities of caste, community, region etc. which is now at the prime of the exercise of political power – demolishing the very legitimacy of the concept.
Can one imagine a more effectively egalitarian ideology?
The Speaker
Harbans Mukhia, 83, formerly Professor of Medieval History and Rector, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. In early years, his interest focused on medieval Indian historiography, leading to Doctoral thesis, later published, Historians and Historiography during the Reign of Akbar , Vikas, New Delhi, 1976.
Teaching a course on Feudalism at JNU in the 70s and 80s led to research on its theoretical and empirical premises in a comparative perspective. ‘Was there Feudalism in Indian History?’ originally Presidential Address, Medieval Section, Indian History Congress, 1979, also published in The Journal of Peasant Studies, 1981, became the centre of an international debate from 1985 to 93, published as the journal’s special issue and then as a book, Feudalism and Non-European Societies , Frank Cass, London, 1985 (co-edited with T J Byres). It was once again revised, edited by him and published as The Feudalism Debate , Manohar,New Delhi, in 2000.
Founder Editor- The Medieval History Journal , published by SAGE from New Delhi, London, Los Angeles, Washington DC, and Singapore.
Other Major Publications:
French Studies in History , Orient Longman, New Delhi ( in two volumes) 1988-90 Co-edited with Maurice Aymard
Perspectives on Medieval History Vikas, New Delhi, 1993
Religion, Religiosity and Communalism , co-edited with Praful Bidwai and Achin Vanaik , Manohar, New Delhi. 1993
The Mughals of India, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, in 2004
Exploring India’s Medieval Centuries: Essays in History, Society, Culture and Technology , Aakar Books, New Delhi, 2010
History of Technology, vol. II,Medieval India, INSA, New Delhi 2012
Understanding India: Indology and Beyond ,co-edited with Jaroslav Vacek, Prague, 2012
Professor Harbans Mukhia, Professor (
Retd.) of Medieval History at the Centre for Historical Studies, JNU ; an
eminent authority on Medieval India ;
author and editor of many books will be delivering the 22nd Democracy Dialogues
lecture on Sunday, 15th January 2023 at 6 PM (IST). The focus of his lecture
will be Democracy’s Structural Slippages and the Indian Experiment
Topic: Democracy’s Structural Slippages and the
Indian Experiment
Conceptualised as the devolution of
sovereign power from monarchy or oligarchy to the common people, the devolution
was institutionalised through periodic elections with universal adult franchise
that would make governments accountable to the electorate, the people. Perfect
imaginary for the implementation of the concept, for equality was its basic
premise with the individual at its heart. It thus subsumed earlier experiments
in equality which had masses of people as the premise.
However, the imaginary contains
several slippages. First, its progress itself through halting stages created
massive inequalities in the exercise of power. Second, most important, at its
final, universal stage, its equivalence with the electoral process leaves huge
spaces for almost universal ‘minority rule’ legitimized through elections and
therefore unequal distribution of power. At any rate, the difference between
majority and minority is merely mechanical and therefore open to debate.
In India, on one hand, the
Constitution introduced the most modern version of democracy through universal
adult franchise and multi-party elections; on the other, it was operationalised
through the mobilisation of essentially pre-modern identities of caste,
community, region etc. which is now at the prime of the exercise of political
power – demolishing the very legitimacy of the concept.
Can one imagine a more effectively
egalitarian ideology?
The Speaker
Harbans Mukhia, 83, formerly
Professor of Medieval History and Rector, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New
Delhi. In early years, his interest focused on medieval Indian historiography,
leading to Doctoral thesis, later published, Historians and Historiography
during the Reign of Akbar , Vikas, New Delhi, 1976.
Teaching a course on Feudalism at JNU
in the 70s and 80s led to research on its theoretical and empirical premises in
a comparative perspective. ‘Was there Feudalism in Indian History?’ originally
Presidential Address, Medieval Section, Indian History Congress, 1979, also
published in The Journal of Peasant Studies, 1981, became the centre of an
international debate from 1985 to 93, published as the journal’s special issue
and then as a book, Feudalism and Non-European Societies , Frank Cass, London,
1985 (co-edited with T J Byres). It was once again revised, edited by him and
published as The Feudalism Debate , Manohar,New Delhi, in 2000.
Founder Editor- The Medieval History
Journal , published by SAGE from New Delhi, London, Los Angeles, Washington DC,
and Singapore.
Other Major Publications:
French Studies in History , Orient
Longman, New Delhi ( in two volumes) 1988-90 Co-edited with Maurice Aymard
Perspectives on Medieval History Vikas, New Delhi, 1993
Religion, Religiosity and Communalism
, co-edited with Praful Bidwai and Achin Vanaik , Manohar, New Delhi. 1993
The Mughals of India, Blackwell
Publishers, Oxford, in 2004
Exploring India’s Medieval Centuries:
Essays in History, Society, Culture and Technology , Aakar Books, New Delhi,
2010
History of Technology, vol.
II,Medieval India, INSA, New Delhi 2012
Understanding India: Indology and
Beyond ,co-edited with Jaroslav Vacek, Prague, 2012
The 21th lecture in the Democracy Dialogues series was delivered by Prof. Istiaq Ahmed on 27 November 2022 where he spoke on "The Tow-Nation Theory, Partition and the Consequences "
Topic : The Two-Nation Theory, Partition and the Consequences
1. The Two-Nation Theory as an Idea and an Argument: The talk will contextualize the origins of the Two-Nation Theory in the background of pre-colonial and British colonial rule and analyse it in relation to competing ideas of a One-Nation Theory as well as the vaguer ideas of multiple nationalities deriving from language, ethnicity and religion. This section will also deal with British policy regarding such competing ideas of group identity and nation and nationalism. This will cover the period 1857 – 1932. However, most attention will be given to the 1928 Motilal Nehru Report (which a section of Muslims including one faction of the Muslim League was willing to accept) and Jinnah’s 14 points.
2. The Two-Nation Theory and the demand for Partition: The Government of India Act 1935, the election speeches and manifestos, election results and the Muslim League’s deployment of communalism as political strategy to demand partition on behalf of Muslims. The stands of the Indian National Congress, the Muslim League, the Communist Party of India, the Hindu Mahasabha, the Jamiat Ulema e Hind and other Islamist, regional and working-class parties of Muslims and the Sikhs of Punjab.
3. British policy on the future of India: from unwillingness to grant India freedom to retaining influence and control through defence treaty to finally deciding in favour of partition. The Cabinet Mission Plan, Wavell’s schemes to transfer power as an award, The British military’s transformation from opposition to support for partition; 3 June Partition Plan, the partitions of Bengal and Punjab, the 18 July 1947 Indian Independence Act.
4. The Partition as a flawed exercise in the transfer of power which claimed at least one million Hindu, Muslim and Sikh lives, caused the biggest migration in history (14 – 15 million) and bequeathed bitter disputes over the sharing of colonial assets, territory and claims to princely states. In this regard, the
5. The Partition as a referent for nation-building: while agreeing finally to the partition of India on a religious basis India held steadfastly to nation-building on a secular, liberal-democratic, inclusive and pluralist basis. The Indian constitution came to represent such a view of nation and nation-building. On the other hand, since Pakistan had been won in the name of Islam its nation-building was based on distinguishing Muslims from non-Muslims and generating different formulae of differential rights. More importantly, it brought to light the deep divisions among Muslims based on sect, sub-sect and ethno-linguistic criteria.
6. The Partition and settling of disputes between India and Pakistan: The two-nation theory continued to define and determine relations between India and Pakistan resulting in wars, terrorism and zero-sum games in international forums.
7. The Partition as a historical, political, ideological and intellectual phenomenon: An Evaluation
About the Speaker :
Prof Ishtiaq Ahmed Professor Emeritus of Political Science, Stockholm University; Honorary Senior Fellow, Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore. Published several books with special focus on the politics of South Asia discussed in context of regional and international relations
Latest publications, Jinnah: His Successes, Failures and Role in History, New Delhi: Penguin Viking, 2020 won the English Non-Fiction Book Award for 2021 at the Valley of Words Literary Festival, Dehradu, India; Jinnah: His Successes, Failures and Role in History, Vanguard Books, Lahore 2021;
Pakistan: The Garrison State, Origins, Evolution, Consequences (1947-2011), Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2013;
The Punjab Bloodied, Partitioned and Cleansed, Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2012- It won the Best Non-Fiction Book Prize at the 2013 Karachi Literature Festival and the 2013 UBL-Jang Groups Best Non-Fiction Book Prize at Lahore and the Best Book on Punjab Award from Punjabi Parchar at the Vaisakhi Mela in Lahore, 2016
He is working on a new book, The Partitions of India, Punjab and Bengal: Who What and Why
He is the Editor-in-Chief of the “Liberal Arts & Social Sciences International Journal (LASSIJ)” and also regularly writes columns in several Pakistani newspapers.
[I
must begin with a “thank you” to the Indian Diaspora of Washington DC* and to
Razi Saheb for letting me say a few words here. It is an honour for me to share
the dais, even if virtually, with Gauhar Raza and Pervez Hoodbhoy. I was
stressed about Razi Saheb being a stern time-keeper. So, I decided to jot down
what I have to say. But the flip side is that I did not know at the time of
preparing these notes what Gauhar and Pervez would say. Please bear with me if
what I say turns out to be redundant in the light of what has already been
said, or if it appears tangential to the concerns of the organizers or of the
other two speakers.]
Let
me first get some elementary considerations out of the way. The title refers to
the land of Bose, Raman and Salam, which might betray an assumption that a
scientist is guaranteed to possess scientific temper and he is influential
enough to leave an imprint on the society. In an ideal world, perhaps, that
ought to be the case. But even scientists do not live in an ideal world.
Take
the example of Sir Isaac Newton, the greatest icon of science, whose genius did
put its final and authoritative seal on the Scientific Revolution. Running away
from plague in Cambridge to his native village, the young and solitary scholar
single-handedly laid the foundation of modern science. He accomplished this
during a mere 18 months of his anni mirabiles of 1665-66 when he formulated his
laws of motion and his theory of gravitation. In addition, he also invented
calculus during the same months. But, after that, he devoted a large part of
his long life to the practice of alchemy and to the theological labours of
interpreting the Bible. He denounced what he thought were corruptions of
Christianity – such as trinitarianism – and adopted a radically puritanical
version of Arianism that considered the Bible as an exact Revelation about the
future. Nothing in Newton was of normal proportions – neither his scientific
genius nor his rigid dogmatism and confident superstitions.
If
you think I am being unfair to Newton – after all he could only be a product of
his times – you are already conceding part of the point I am driving at. But
let me cite a few examples from more recent times before I try to peep into the
relationship between Science and Scientific Temper. Pascual Jordan, a pioneer
of Quantum Mechanics, was an active Nazi who continued to hold his fascist
views even after his rehabilitation in post-war Germany. Physics Nobel
laureates Philipp Lenard and Johannes Stark too were active Nazis and confirmed
anti-Semites. A little earlier, the great mathematician, Emmy Noether, had been
prevented from becoming a faculty in the mathematics department of the
University of Gottingen just because she was a woman. An exasperated David
Hilbert famously said, “I do not see that the sex of the candidate is an
argument against her admission as a privatdozent. After all, we are a
university, not a bathhouse.” And a scientist friend of mine reminded me the
other day that our own Sir C V Raman, one in the title of this program, was
opposed to a woman being admitted as a Ph.D. student, because, in his views,
women were unfit to do science.
I am
not here to withhold the certificate of scientific temper from being awarded to
eminent scientists. My purpose is to examine whether lack of scientific temper
comes in the way of doing good science. Pervez Hoodbhoy wrote a book some
thirty years ago. The book is called “Islam and Science”, and the subtitle is
“Religious Orthodoxy and the Battle for Rationality”. In the book he cites a
telling example. Steven Weinberg and Abdus Salam – the same Salam who too is in
the title of this program – came up with one of the greatest physical theories
of 20th century – the unified quantum theory of electromagnetism and the weak
nuclear force. They invented this theory independently of each other and shared
the Nobel Prize for it. Weinberg was an avowed atheist; Salam was
self-confessedly a believer. Salam wrote the foreword to Pervez’s book in which
he concurs with the author that being a believer made no difference, one way or
the other, to his coming up with the theory. There you have it from the horse’s
mouth. What, then, is the relationship between science and scientific temper?
The
scientist does not live by science alone. Even a scientist’s mind is not
entirely colonised by Scientific Reason. I do not know if, like the brain, the
mind too has two separate but interconnected lobes. But allow me to use a
simple-minded metaphor. Scientific temper, it seems to me, has something to do
with the rational side of the mind trying to influence the emotional side. This
may give rise to a reasonable and cultivated individual, but it can also result
in disaster. With the rational side meddling too much with the emotional side,
it may give rise to a rather childish adult, if not a veritable Dr Strangelove.
Scientific
temper is a tricky business. It involves a very intricate game between Reason
and Culture. Neither side of the game we understand very well. There are those
who think that Reason is transparent, whereas Culture harbours dark corners.
The opposing side points out that this is a false picture. It labours to show
that Reason has murky origins – it did not result from an immaculate
conception. And, it is not at all self-aware – it does not know that it is
inextricably entangled in structures of power.
Which
side is more important for a successful and at the same time a meaningful life?
Which side should sit in judgement? It is a debate that is hard to settle.
There are funny episodes, for example, of scientists sitting in judgment over
poetry. Paul Dirac, one of the greatest scientific minds of the 20th century
once told J R Oppenheimer, another great scientist and a polymath, “I don’t see
how you can work on physics and write poetry at the same time. In science, you
want to say something nobody knew before, in words everyone can understand. In
poetry, you are bound to say something that everybody knows already, in words
that nobody can understand.” The judgements of poets about science, on the
other hand, are usually not so funny. They are often much darker – prone to
denouncing the supposed soullessness of science or mocking it as one mocks the
childishness of a grown-up.
With
this much as a background, let me now come to the topic of the day. I do agree
with the assertion that scientific temper is largely missing from the societies
and cultures that form a distinct civilisation on the subcontinent. But, I am
less surprised that it is missing despite scientists likes of Bose, Raman and
Salam. I am more surprised that it is missing despite someone like Jawaharlal
Nehru. To my mind, Nehru was the best and the wisest proponent of the
desirability of scientific temper. Let me quote a passage from The Discovery of
India even if it consumes a precious minute,
“Science
deals with the domain of positive knowledge but the temper which it should
produce goes beyond that domain. The ultimate purposes of man may be said to be
to gain knowledge, to realize truth, to appreciate goodness and beauty. The
scientific method of objective inquiry is not applicable to all these, and much
that is vital in life seems to lie beyond its scope – the sensitiveness to art
and poetry, the emotion that beauty produces, the inner recognition of
goodness. The botanist and the zoologist may never experience the charm and
beauty of nature; the sociologist may be wholly lacking in love for humanity.
But even when we visit the mountain tops where philosophy dwells and high
emotions fill us, or gaze at the immensity beyond, that approach and temper are
still necessary.”
I
might also add that the Indian Constitution is the only Constitution in the
world which prescribes developing “scientific temper, humanism and the spirit
of inquiry and reform” as a fundamental duty of every citizen.
All
this, however, may sound too philosophical and too idealistic. How can one be
sure that scientific temper really matters to a society or a civilisation? I
think history has provided a very real example. Let me dwell on it for a
minute.
Pervez’s
book that I have already mentioned opens with a parable of “a team of Martian
anthropologists visiting Earth sometime between the 9th and 13th centuries”.
They find that “the civilization with greatest promise is the Islamic
civilization with its Bait-ul-Hikmah, astronomical observatories, hospitals and
schools”. Then they visit again towards the end of 20th century and find that
“their earlier prediction had turned out to be wrong. The part of humanity
which once seemed to offer the greatest promise now appears inescapably trapped
in a state of frozen medievalism, rejecting the new and clinging desperately to
the old. On the other hand, the former retrogrades have climbed the
evolutionary ladder and are now aiming for the stars. Was this stunning
reversal of roles, ask the visitors, the mere misfortune of one and the good
fortune of the other? Was it due to invasions and military defeats? Or was it
the result of a fundamental shift in outlook and attitudes?”
With
minor variations the parable may apply equally well to the fate of the
subcontinent. If the Martians were to visit here sometime during the 17th
century, they would be dazzled by the Navratnas (nine jewels) in Akbar’s court
and they would marvel at the fact that the subcontinent accounted for nearly
one third of the total world production. However, on their second visit at the
turn of the millennium, they would be equally disappointed with this
civilisation.
Perhaps
the real question to ask is: why and how did the West pull ahead? That may shed
easy light on why everyone else got left behind. The answer is obvious, but,
like the case of the elephant in the room, there have been reasons for ignoring
the obvious. Looking for deeper causalities behind the long trajectories of
history may no longer be the intellectual flavour of the day. After all, this
is the era of suspicions about grand narratives. We who got left behind can
derive satisfaction from the all-round denunciations of colonialism and
imperialism and attribute all that we suffer from to their crimes. We may
rejoice that those in the high chairs of western academia are raising an
intellectual storm against science and modernity which, supposedly, have been
nothing but handmaidens of capitalism, colonialism and imperialism. The
postcolonial theorist may continue to uncover sinister doings of the long dead
colonialism. But someday we will have to ask – what is in it for us on the
subcontinent? These critics are definitely making the western societies better,
more cultivated, more democratic and more multicultural. But they already had
science and modernity; they had already pulled ahead. How should we find our
path out of poverty and superstition? What kind of future should we visualize
for ourselves?
Explanations
about why and how did the West pull ahead fill entire libraries. But, in some
ways, the answer is too obvious: West did it with the help of science and
modernity. Of course, both were born along with capitalism and colonialism. But
one should not throw the baby with the bathwater. It is truly astonishing that
there exist high theories declaring that all claims of science about universal
truths, objectivity and uniqueness of scientific method are false; that all
cultures and communities in all ages had equally valid claims to knowledge and
method. In India a simple way has been found to support such theories – all one
has to do is to claim that everything that modern science has accomplished, and
will ever accomplish, is already there in the Vedas.
In
any case, West did not accomplish the miracle of Great Divergence only through
capitalism and industrial revolution. Enlightenment and Modernity played an
equally important role. I have already referred to the complex interaction
between Science and Culture. In 18th century Western Europe this imparted an
added acceleration to history. And it took nearly two centuries after the
advent of modern science for scientific temper to seep into western culture.
Enlightenment was the name given to this process of seeping in.
Enlightenment
and Modernity cannot just be imported or imitated. This is because of the fact
that science is one but cultures are many. All cultures must find their own
ways to imbibe science and animate modernity. Among those who were left behind,
there have been a few successful examples of catching up with the West. Soviet
Union used to be one such example but it collapsed. Russia, in any case, was
too close to the European civilisation to count as a distinctive example. In
the East, Japan earlier and China now have been such examples. What has stopped
the subcontinent from being another such example?
This
too is an enormous subject and an extraordinarily complex one. It is said that
fools rush in where angels fear to tread. But let me rush in nevertheless.
Among many millennial historical processes that have gone into the making a
distinct civilisation on the subcontinent, one is special and unique. Elements
of it may be found in other lands but on the subcontinent it has played role
like no other place on the planet. This, in my opinion, has been the single
largest obstacle to scientific temper seeping into our culture. Let me conclude
by pointing a finger at it.
I am
alluding to the fact that nearly all religions on the subcontinent took, in
varying degrees, a mystical-devotional form, comprising of numerous sects led
by gurus, pirs, mahatmas and other god-men – all engaged in the task of paving
a plebeian road for a direct access to God without the mediation of priests or
books or other intermediaries. On the Hindu side it emerged in the South as the
Bhakti Movement and spread to the North in the second millennium. On the Muslim
side it made its way through Afghanistan to the north-west of India and spread
through sufis, dervishes and pirs. The phenomenon also gave rise to a new
religion – Sikhism. It is this phenomenon of Bhakti, Sufism, Sikhism and
assorted mystical-devotional movements that is at the heart of a distinct
civilisation on the subcontinent.
This
phenomenon has been judged favourably by nearly everyone. It has won praises
from the religious and the non-religious, from traditionalists and modernists,
from the right-wing as well as the left-wing. Nearly everyone prefers
heterodoxy to orthodoxy. There is no denying that in many ways it has
contributed positively to the culture and civilization on the subcontinent. And
yet, there is a very large negative fall-out that has been largely ignored.
This
phenomenon triggers processes that obstruct the advance of scientific temper
and modernity. It encourages blind faith at the cost of a genuine sense of
wonder; prevents religiosity from turning genuinely spiritual and becoming
philosophical; prevents the philosophical from becoming reasoned; prevents
Reason from seeping into Culture. It has been the principal vehicle of
unreason, blind faith and superstition in our part of the world. George Orwell
once said, “Saints should always be judged guilty until proven innocent”. An
ironical meaning has been added to Orwell by today’s India where god-men do not
lose followers even after being convicted as rapists and murderers.
Even
Nehru fails to grapple with the civilizational consequences of Bhakti Movement.
He harbours contradictions. He admires Vivekanand, Rabindranath Tagore, Gandhi,
Bhagat Singh and Einstein – all at the same time. He was a great man – a
visionary, a leader, a thinker, a statesman. Like Whitman he could perhaps say,
“I am large, I contain multitudes”. He failed because the weight of the past
was too heavy. He could not speak bare truths because he had to carry his
people along. That is why, sometimes, you need to listen to small men too. They
can speak the bare truth as they are spared the onerous task of carrying
Nehru’s burden.
This
is where I will stop.
Dr
Ravi Sinha, Theoretical Physicist, Activist, Scholar, associated with
Progressive Movements and Writer
[*
The Indian Diaspora Washington DC Metro, USA organised an online panel
discussion on the theme ‘Absence of Scientific Temper in the Lands of
Scientists Raman, Bose, Abdus Salaam on 19 th November 2022.
Professor
Pervez Hoodbhoy, Eminent Physicist, Prominent Public Intellectual, Civil Rights
Activist, Author, Columnist from Pakistan ; Dr Ravi Sinha, Theoretical
Physicist, Activist, Scholar, associated with Progressive Movements and Writer
; Mr Gauhar Raza, Former Chief Scientist, Council of Scientific and Industrial
Research, Civil Rights Activist, Poet, Documentary Filmmaker both from India
shared their ideas at the programme which was followed by discussion.
Prof Razi Raziuddin,
Scientist, Founder, Indian Diaspora, Washington DC Metro, USA shared welcoming
remarks.
Prof
Ishtiaq Ahmed, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, Stockholm University
and a leading authority on the Politics of South Asia and an eminent author has
kindly consented to deliver lecture in the Democracy Dialogues Series,
organised by New Socialist Initiative'.
Topic : The Two-Nation Theory,
Partition and the Consequences
1. The Two-Nation Theory as an Idea and an
Argument: The talk will contextualize the origins of the Two-Nation Theory in
the background of pre-colonial and British colonial rule and analyse it in
relation to competing ideas of a One-Nation Theory as well as the vaguer ideas
of multiple nationalities deriving from language, ethnicity and religion. This
section will also deal with British policy regarding such competing ideas of
group identity and nation and nationalism. This will cover the period 1857 –
1932. However, most attention will be given to the 1928 Motilal Nehru Report
(which a section of Muslims including one faction of the Muslim League was
willing to accept) and Jinnah’s 14 points.
2.
The Two-Nation Theory and the demand for Partition: The Government of
India Act 1935, the election speeches and manifestos, election results and the
Muslim League’s deployment of communalism as political strategy to demand
partition on behalf of Muslims. The stands of the Indian National Congress, the
Muslim League, the Communist Party of India, the Hindu Mahasabha, the Jamiat
Ulema e Hind and other Islamist, regional and working-class parties of Muslims
and the Sikhs of Punjab.
3.
British policy on the future of India: from unwillingness to grant India
freedom to retaining influence and control through defence treaty to finally
deciding in favour of partition. The Cabinet Mission Plan, Wavell’s schemes to
transfer power as an award, The British military’s transformation from
opposition to support for partition; 3 June Partition Plan, the partitions of
Bengal and Punjab, the 18 July 1947 Indian Independence Act.
4.
The Partition as a flawed exercise in the transfer of power which
claimed at least one million Hindu, Muslim and Sikh lives, caused the biggest
migration in history (14 – 15 million) and bequeathed bitter disputes over the
sharing of colonial assets, territory and claims to princely states. In this
regard, the
5.
The Partition as a referent for nation-building: while agreeing finally
to the partition of India on a religious basis India held steadfastly to
nation-building on a secular, liberal-democratic, inclusive and pluralist
basis. The Indian constitution came to represent such a view of nation and
nation-building. On the other hand, since Pakistan had been won in the name of
Islam its nation-building was based on distinguishing Muslims from non-Muslims
and generating different formulae of differential rights. More importantly, it
brought to light the deep divisions among Muslims based on sect, sub-sect and
ethno-linguistic criteria.
6.
The Partition and settling of disputes between India and Pakistan: The
two-nation theory continued to define and determine relations between India and
Pakistan resulting in wars, terrorism and zero-sum games in international
forums.
7.
The Partition as a historical, political, ideological and intellectual
phenomenon: An Evaluation
About
the Speaker :
Prof
Ishtiaq Ahmed Professor Emeritus of Political Science, Stockholm University;
Honorary Senior Fellow, Institute of South Asian Studies, National University
of Singapore. Published several books with special focus on the politics of
South Asia discussed in context of regional and international relations
Latest
publications, Jinnah: His Successes, Failures and Role in History, New Delhi: Penguin Viking, 2020 won the
English Non-Fiction Book Award for 2021 at the Valley of Words Literary
Festival, Dehradu, India; Jinnah: His Successes, Failures and Role in History,
Vanguard Books, Lahore 2021;
Pakistan:
The Garrison State, Origins, Evolution, Consequences (1947-2011), Karachi:
Oxford University Press, 2013;
The
Punjab Bloodied, Partitioned and Cleansed, Karachi: Oxford University Press,
2012- It won the Best Non-Fiction Book Prize at the 2013 Karachi Literature
Festival and the 2013 UBL-Jang Groups Best Non-Fiction Book Prize at Lahore and
the Best Book on Punjab Award from Punjabi Parchar at the Vaisakhi Mela in
Lahore, 2016
He
is working on a new book, The Partitions of India, Punjab and Bengal: Who What
and Why
He
is the Editor-in-Chief of the “Liberal Arts & Social Sciences International
Journal (LASSIJ)” and also regularly writes columns in several Pakistani
newspapers.
The 20th lecture in the Democracy Dialogues series was delivered by Dr. Vinod Mubayiat on 30 October 2022 where he spoke on "Partition Split Us Up: Can We Live in Peace as Neighbors ? "
Theme
:Partition
Split Us Up: Can We Live in Peace as Neighbors?
Future Challenges and
Reflections
75
years have passed since Partition and the prospects of peace between the two
largest countries of the region, India and Pakistan, whose conflict impacts the
entire South Asia region look dimmer than ever. The reasons and justifications
offered by the protagonists for the separation, such as the two-nation theory,
have been discussed at length in various forums and while the past is commonly
understood to be prologue to the future it behooves us to imagine a future
without all the baggage of the past.
This
talk will refer at times to the past and the misdeeds of the present but focus
mostly on possibilities for the future. A good amount of experience has shown
that despite the most fraught and tense relations between governments, common
people of south Asian countries, whether in the diaspora or while visiting each
other’s countries, are able to establish bonds and friendships very quickly and
easily. Perhaps 75 years cannot easily extinguish long standing cultural and
linguistic bonds established over millennia. Dialectics also teaches us that
opposing and contradictory views and ideas can co-exist within a society or
group and which will prevail depends on the context in which the opposites
interact.
Groups
such as South Asia Peace Action Network (SAPAN), whose founding charter states
that its minimum common agenda is reclaiming South Asia, have attracted members
from all South Asian countries. SAPAN calls for soft borders and visa free
travel between countries in the region in addition to demands for human rights,
peace and justice. The talk will discuss possibilities of expanding the
activities of people-to-people groups that can create civil society pressures
for peace and prosperity as well as joint actions to counter existential
threats like climate change.
About
the Speaker :
Dr
Vinod Mubayi is a reputed American Physicist of Indian origin.PhD in Physics
from Brandeis University, taught at Cornell University and was a research
fellow at TIFR, Mumbai before joining Brookhaven National Laboratory, New York.
A
member of the American Nuclear Society, the American Physical Society and the
American Association for the Advancement of Science, he was also a Consultant
to agencies of the United Nations on Energy Issues ( 1981-1985)
He
joined INSAF bulletin as co-editor in 2004.
A keen observer of socio-political events in India, Mubayi has been
close to progressive groups, espousing human rights issues and the cause of the
downtrodden
His
book 'Where is India Headed ? - An Historical Critique ( 2021, Media House)
which chronicles the contemporary Indian History during the last few decades
has also been translated into Hindi
New Socialist Initiative is a collective committed to the belief that humanity can create a society free of economic deprivation, gender, caste, national and racial oppressions, and ecological degradation. It will be a society of associated humans which will ensure that 'the free development of each (will be) the condition for the free development of all'. This requires a social system run collectively for the welfare of all, as against capitalism that is run by the rich and the powerful for their private profit. While we uphold the legacy of socialist revolutions of the last century, we also believe that it is necessary to learn from their limitations and mistakes to successfully challenge new forms of political and ideological domination evolved by capitalism.
