19th October 2018
The Ayodhya land dispute – preliminary background research
I’m trying to understand the Ram Mandir issue. In this post (to be further elaborated when I find time), I’ll bring together some historical and legal details. In a further post I’ll try to form a view that is consistent with the principles of liberalism and India’s Constitution (prelim view here).
1528: The Babri Masjid, a mosque in Ayodhya, is constructed by Mir Baki on the orders of Mughal emperor Babar. Some consider that it was built on the foundations of a temple which marked the birthplace of Ram.
1885: Mahant Raghubir Das files plea in Faizabad district court seeking permission to build a canopy outside the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid structure. British India Court rejects plea.
1949: On the night of December 22-23,1949, Hindu miscreants (some of them involved in the murder of Gandhi) in connivance with the local district administration, planted a Ram statue in the mosque (See Dark Night by Jha and Jha).
This led to widespread protests and both communities filed cases, Hashim Ansari for Muslims and Mahant Paramhans Ramchandra Das for Hindus. The government declared the site as disputed and locked the gates to it.
1950: Mahant Paramhans Ramchandra Das, the chief of Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas, and Gopal Singh Visharad file suits in Faizabad, seeking permission to pray before the installed idols. The puja was allowed though the inner courtyard gates remain locked.
1959: Nirmohi Akhara, one of the main parties to the dispute, and others file a case and sought permission again to conduct prayers and seeking possession of the site.
1961: Sunni Central Board of Waqfs in Uttar Pradesh files a case claiming the mosque, and argues that the surrounding area was a graveyard.
1981: UP Sunni Central Waqf Board files suit for possession of the site.
1984: The Vishwa Hindu Parishad constitutes a group to continue the movement as BJP leader L K Advani is made the leader of the campaign.
February 1, 1986: Faizabad district judge orders the gates of the structure be opened for Hindus to offer prayers. Babri Masjid Action Committee is formed soon after this. “The doors of the Bahri Masjid were opened for worship at the Ram shrine in 1986….When the gates to the disputed shrine in the Bahri Masjid were unlocked on February 1, 1986, Syed Shahabuddin took the lead in organizing a Muslim agitation in protest.” [Ramesh Thakur’s 1993 Asian Survey article]
1989: Then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi allows shilanyas or a ground-breaking ceremony in an undisputed site close to the structure. The hearing of the case is subsequently shifted to the High Court. “In 1989 Rajiv permitted the performance of shilanyas (laying of foundation stone). Indeed, he performed shilanyas himself near Ayodhya at the start of the 1989 election campaign”[Ramesh Thakur’s 1993 Asian Survey article].
Aug 14, 1989: Allahabad HC ordered maintenance of status quo in respect of the disputed structure. “The retired judge Deoki Nandan Agarwal collected revenue records and other documents to claim the land belonged to Ram before filing a writ petition before the Allahabad high court in 1989. In his suit, he appointed Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman—Ram himself—as the lead plaintiff. He pronounced himself Ram Lalla’s “next friend”—a provision that would allow him to conduct legal battle on Ram’s behalf.” [Source]
September 25,1990: Advani launches a rath yatra (pilgrimage procession) from Somnath to Ayodhya to galvanise support for the issue countrywide. The yatra traversed 10,000 kilometres through the country in a jeep designed like a chariot, with the rallying cry of “Mandir wahin banayenge”—the temple will only be built there. The yatra left a trail of communal clashes wherever it went. It came to a head with the demolition of the mosque by a 300,000-strong mob. The incident led to one of the worst outbreaks of communal violence in modern India. [Source]
November 1990: Advani’s rath is stopped and he is arrested in Samastipur, Bihar. Dissatisfied with the development, the BJP withdraws its support to the VP Singh government, triggering fresh elections. The saffron party makes giant strides in the assembly elections by winning a majority.
July 1992: The Bahri Masjid controversy flared up dangerously in July 1992 when the Uttar Pradesh state government showed great reluctance to stop the kar seva (holy volunteer work) at Ayodhya. On July 21 the Sant Samaj (congregation of holy men) rejected a proposal from Prime Minister Rao to suspend the ongoing kar seva for construction of the temple and enter into a dialogue with the central government. The following day the VHP asked the kar sevaks to ignore the Supreme Court’s commentaries on the dispute. As far as the VHP and the Sant Samaj were concerned, the dispute was beyond the competence of any court to decide. The BJP government of the state refused to countenance the use of force against the kar sevaks and prepared instead for central government intervention to enforce the court’s orders. [Ramesh Thakur’s 1993 Asian Survey article]
November 23, 1992: “The National Integration Council had met on November 23, and the central government had received intelligence reports warning of specially trained squads being arranged during the kar seva for purposes inimical to the security of the Bahri Masjid structure.” [Ramesh Thakur’s 1993 Asian Survey article]
Dec 6, 1992: Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid structure demolished by Hindutva ruffians called “kar sevaks”, led by BJP criminals. A makeshift temple was placed in its place. The PV Narasimha Rao-led Congress government then moved court for status quo. “In the tense post-demolition atmosphere, the Shahi Imam was in the forefront, demanding the right of Muslims to offer namaaz (Muslim prayers) at the disputed site.” [Ramesh Thakur’s 1993 Asian Survey article]
December 21,1992: “In the Lok Sabha debate on December 21, 1992, Narasimha Rao argued that Article 356 of the Constitution was too restrictive to have permitted him to dismiss the BJP government before the mosque’s demolition and that perhaps it needed to be amended.” [Ramesh Thakur’s 1993 Asian Survey article]
“The Bajrang Dal, RSS, and VHP (and two Muslim organizations) were banned by the government after December 6 as communal organizations.” [Ramesh Thakur’s 1993 Asian Survey article]
“Stung by allegations of having been too cautious in UP, Narasimha Rao took the extra-precautionary measure of dismissing all BJP state governments-Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Himachal Pradesh-after the Ayodhya demolition.” [Ramesh Thakur’s 1993 Asian Survey article]
“Rao promised that the mosque would be rebuilt. But in the meantime, the Hindu mob that had destroyed the mosque had built a makeshift temple on the ruins and installed images of Ram. A new mosque could not be built on the site without first destroying the temple and the images.” [Ramesh Thakur’s 1993 Asian Survey article]
“On January 2, 1993, the district administration of Ayodhya lifted the ban and permitted Hindus to worship at the Ram shrine on the site of the demolished mosque.” [Ramesh Thakur’s 1993 Asian Survey article]
“A mass BJP rally in Delhi at the end of February 1993 was thwarted by a massive police deployment.” [Ramesh Thakur’s 1993 Asian Survey article]
“Whatever Hindus might think … of the installation of Ram idols in Ayodhya, the sobering fact is that it was accomplished by mob rule of the worst sort: defiance of constitutional authority with the passive connivance of the police and the state government.” [Ramesh Thakur’s 1993 Asian Survey article]
Apr 3, 1993: ‘Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act’ passed for acquisition of land by Centre in the disputed area.
“On January 24, 1993, the government promulgated a presidential ordinance to acquire almost 68 acres of land in and around the Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid complex at Ayodhya. The land is to be handed over to two trusts, one to build a temple and the other a mosque” [Ramesh Thakur’s 1993 Asian Survey article]
1993: Various writ petitions, including one by Ismail Faruqui, filed at Allahabad HC challenging various aspects of the Act.
Oct 24, 1994: SC says in the Ismail Faruqui case that a mosque was not integral to Islam.
May 4, 2001: Special Judge SK Shukla drops conspiracy charge against 13 accused, including Advani and Kalyan Singh. Bifurcates Crimes 197 and 198.Allahabad HC upholds May 4, 2001 special court order, dismisses the CBI’s revision petition for a direction to proceed with the conspiracy charge against Advani and others.
Apr, 2002: HC begins hearing on determining who owns the disputed site.
March 5, 2003: The Allahabad High Court orders the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) to excavate the disputed site in order to determine whether a temple existed where the mosque stood.
Mar 13, 2003: SC says, in the Aslam alias Bhure case, no religious activity of any nature be allowed at the acquired land.
Mar 14 2003: SC says interim order passed should be operative till disposal of the civil suits in Allahabad HC to maintain communal harmony.
August 22, 2003: ASI submits its report to the Allahabad High Court, saying it had found features of a 10th century temple beneath the site of the masjid.
August 31, 2003: All India Muslim Personal Law Board says it would challenge the ASI report.
June 30, 2009: The Liberhan Commission, constituted soon after the Babri Masjid demolition by the P.V. Narasimha Rao-led government, submits its report. In its report, retired High Court Judge MS Liberhan concluded that several BJP leaders had a role in the incident.
July 26, 2010: The bench reserves its judgment and advised all parties to solve the issue amicably. But no one was keen.
September 23, 2010: The plea for an out-of-court settlement reaches Supreme Court and the apex body says it would hear it again on September 28.
September 28, 2010: Supreme Court rejects petition for deferment and gives the nod to the Allahabad High Court to deliver the judgment. The High Court chooses September 30 as verdict day.
September 30, 2010: The Allahabad High Court, in a 2:1 majority, rules three-way division of the 2.77 acres of the disputed Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi site between Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla Virajman.
February, 2011: CBI moves Supreme Court, argues that “the actual demolition of the Babri Masjid and the continuous assault on media persons form a single connected transaction and can well be a concerted conspiracy.”
May 9, 2011: Supreme Court stays Allahabad High Court verdict on Ayodhya land dispute. [“In 2010, the high court in Allahabad ruled that one-third of the land would go to Ram Lalla, while the remaining would be split between the other two plaintiffs. The next year, the Supreme Court stayed the order on grounds that no party had wanted a three-way split – Source].
December 25, 2014: Mohammad Farooq, the oldest litigant in Babri Masjid case passes away. Farooq, a resident of Ayodhya, was one of the seven main litigants from Muslim side in the 1949 Babri Masjid case.
Feb 26, 2016: Subramanian Swamy files plea in SC seeking construction of Ram Temple at the disputed site.
March 21, 2017: Suggesting an out-of-court rapprochement among rival parties in the 68-year-old Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute, Chief Justice of India JS Khehar advises peace negotiations instead of a pitched court battle, even offering help to settle the fight amicably.
March 23, 2017: A Supreme Court Bench of Justices PC Ghose and Rohinton Nariman posted for detailed hearing the CBI appeal against the dropping of the criminal conspiracy charge against veteran BJP leader LK Advani and other top party leaders after two weeks.
April 6, 2017: Supreme Court indicates it will use its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to transfer the Babri Masjid demolition related trial in Rae Bareilly against top BJP leaders LK Advani and Murli Manohar Joshi to Lucknow, where a CBI court was hearing conspiracy and other serious criminal charges against “lakhs of unknown kar sevaks” for the actual act of razing down the 15th century mosque.
April 19, 2017: Supreme Court revives conspiracy charges against LK Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and 13 others in the 25-year-old Babri Masjid demolition case.
May 30, 2017: Senior BJP leaders LK Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharti and Vinay Katiyar charged with criminal conspiracy in the Babri Masjid demolition case.
Aug 7, 2017: SC constitutes three-judge bench to hear pleas challenging the 1994 verdict of the Allahabad HC.
August 8, 2017: Uttar Pradesh Shia Central Waqf Board informs the Supreme Court that they would settle for a masjid located in a “Muslim-dominated area at a reasonable distance from the most revered place of birth of Maryada Purushottam Sri Ram.”
August 11, 2017: Supreme Court schedules hearing of 13 appeals in the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute on December 5, 2017, the eve of the 25th anniversary of the demolition of the 15th century mosque.
Sep 11, 2017: SC directs Chief Justice of the Allahabad HC to nominate two additional district judges within ten days as observers to deal with the upkeep of the disputed site.
Nov 20, 2017: UP Shia Central Waqf Board tells SC temple can be built in Ayodhya and mosque in Lucknow.
Dec 1, 2017: Thirty-two civil rights activists file plea challenging the 2010 verdict of the Allahabad HC.
December 5, 2017: Supreme Court defers the commencement of final hearing in the Ayodhya dispute matter to February 8, 2018. The stakeholders had moved the SC after the Allahabad High Court directed the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and the Lord Ram Lalla to settle for a three-way division of the disputed site.
Feb 8, 2018: SC starts hearing the civil appeals.
Mar 14, 2018: SC rejects all interim pleas, including Swamy’s, seeking to intervene as parties in the case.
Apr 6, 2018: Rajeev Dhavan files plea in SC to refer the issue of reconsideration of the observations in its 1994 judgement to a larger bench.
Jul 6, 2018: UP government tells SC some Muslim groups were trying to delay the hearing by seeking reconsideration of an observation in the 1994 verdict.
Sep 27, 2018: SC declines to refer the case to a five-judge Constitution bench. Case to be heard by a newly constituted three-judge bench on October 29.
18th October 2018
A report on my recent trip to India (27 September -15 October 2018)
In June 2019 it will be five years since the registration of Swarna Bharat Party with the Election Commission of India.
Despite almost total lack of significant interest in reforms from Indians over the past 20 years, I have been pushing myself along to complete this last chapter. I have decided to put in reasonable effort at least till the 2019 Lok Sabha elections and then review any further involvement with India.
This is my last and final experiment in reforms in India. If Indians continue to display the same attitude towards reform that they have displayed for over 20 years, I’m going to put down my pen and pick up the painting brush and trekking gear from June 2019.
But I must do my due diligence and put in the appropriate effort during this last experiment.
Why did I make this trip now?
I had been watching the lackadaisical progress of the party for some time now, although there have been sporadic signs of life in Bhadohi and a few other places. But there were a constellation of things I wanted to achieve so I decided to make a trip in September-October.
There have been significant problems with SBP’s website and I wanted to discuss this personally with our IT team in Jaipur. I also wanted to meet our party’s new candidate Mahesh Gaendragadkar in Pune and see the progress being made in Maharashtra. I was also interested in meeting Shetkari Sanghatna leaders and if possible Swatantra Bharat Party leaders. I was also interested in visiting Bhadohi to see for myself the progress being made by this young team.
Two other things came up. First, the launch of a new India movement on the 81st birthday of Swami Om Poorna Swatantra on 6th October in Delhi. And there was also the possibility of meeting a couple of journalists during my trip.
Each India trip is expensive. I’ve spent over Rs.1.25 lakhs on this trip, and the question for me is: was this good value for my money and time. I will answer this question at the end of this post.
So what did I do and what did I learn?
I’ll go chronologically, below. Further, most of this material is covered in some form or shape on my blog and on my Facebook posts. I’ll provide a few links but for anyone interested in pictures, etc. – please visit my FB profile of this period.
On 29 and 30 September I was in Jaipur: On 29 September I met SBP’s IT team and went through a number of issues for improvement of the SBP website. Some discussion also took place regarding potential support for video editing and social media activities. This will be finalized in the coming days subject to the costs and the capacity of the local team to bear these costs. The party is unable to fund these activities at this stage.
Most of the second day was spent with the local Jaipur team. We considered how the Jaipur constituency could be activated for the parliamentary elections. There is a prospect of the Jaipur constituency being contested. I won’t say more at this stage.
On 2,3,4 October I was in Pune: On the way to Pune on 1 October I met one of the senior journalists of Times of India and had a useful preliminary discussion.
On 2 October I met two key leaders of Shetkari Sanghatna. The members of the Swatantra Bharat Party who were expected to attend were unwell and could not come. Amar Habib from Kisan Putra also attended (although he was unwell and had to leave soon). A few young leaders from Kisan Putra also attended. I was particularly impressed by Makarand Doijad.
At the end of the day-long meeting we agreed that – if necessary – the Swatantra Bharat Party could contest Assembly seats on its own, but if we had to have any longer term relationship then Swatantra Bharat Party needed to arrive at a common manifesto with SBP. I requested Swatantra Bharat Party to tell us if they had any differences with our manifesto so we would improve our manifesto. Basically, at the end of this process they needed to put a 100 per cent replica of our joint manifesto on their website. Only then could we engage in the future. At that stage we definitely need to merge, else the whole liberal effort will come to naught – as it has for the past seventy years.
The next two days in Pune I spent most of the time recording videos of Mahesh Gajendragadkar on a range of topics. We agreed that video editing of Marathi videos would need to be done in Pune itself. We also agreed that the Pune team would focus on social media to spread the message. I also met two potential candidates for SBP who might contest from neighbouring constituencies. On the 3rd October evening I spoke at the Entrepreneurs Club.
On return to Delhi from Pune I met a senior leader of AAP who considers himself liberal. This discussion has led to some initial developments – the significance of which only time will tell.
6 October: Delhi I participated in the launch of the new India movement. The launch went reasonably well with around 100 farmer leaders present. I spoke briefly given there was limited time to speak.
8-9 October Bhadohi: Bhadohi was an amazing experience. Just two years of grassroots effort at extremely low cost is bearing the most amazing results. This was the most positive experience of my trip and I came out thinking that the liberal message will finally spread across India from this place. I will try to write in detail about this experience in the coming days.
10 October Delhi It is hard to do an AMA on Reddit from Melbourne given time zone issues. So I decided to do the AMA while I was in India and banged away at the keyboard for nearly two hours. Some young SBP volunteers are assembling learnings from this effort.
11 October: Sonipat On 11 October a few young volunteers of SBP organised a talk with some students at Ashoka University. I thought the talk went well. Students are at least not obnoxious like the ignorant and opinionated “educated” middle class of India.
12 October: Delhi On 12 October I met another senior journalist and also had a detailed discussion with Swami Om Poorna Swatantra. This latter discussion was very productive and may help a range of initiatives to proceed.
13/14 October, Gurgaon: I met a couple of Delhi team members of SBP on 13th and on the 14th had detailed discussions with someone about potential activities in Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh. Some of these discussions might actually yield interesting results.
Conclusion
As we know, there is virtually no appetite for reforms in India. Most “educated” people in India don’t have the slightest interest in reforms.
But in this trip I met only a few such obnoxious people since I focused on meeting SBP leaders and young students – e.g. in Bhadohi and Sonipat. I also enjoyed meeting Shetkari Sanghatna and Kisan Putra leaders.
It remains an ongoing challenge for me to eke out at least some motivation to continue putting in effort till the Lok Sabha elections. There’s something very badly wrong with the mindset of most Indians and I struggle to find reasons to remain involved. Let me just say this, that after more than 20 years of infructuous effort, it will be very easy for me to give up. The cost of my India involvement has been humongous, the results/ reward practically zero. The net balance is massively negative. Yes, I’ve learnt a few things but the cost has been unacceptably high. My mind tells me to STOP. If I was remotely rational, I should not even have started (I should have resigned the IAS much earlier and fled India as soon as possible, as well). But something forces me to do just a little bit more. And every time I end up squeezing yet another blob of motivation and drag myself to do a little bit more.
Despite this huge negative balance and angst, I’d still say that this trip was worthwhile enough. The spark in Bhadohi is of great interest to me. I also hope (hallucinate?) that at least some of these initiatives will finally take off.
Time permitting, I’ll write in detail about some of the above experiences – particularly the Bhadohi one.
16th October 2018
My article in TOI regarding regulating – not banning – cow slaughter
Hundreds of thousands of India’s cows are eating now just plastic and nails but the most toxic waste imaginable that is thrown out by people in streets.
This – from a nation where millions allegedly worship the cow.
My article on this subject was published in Times of India yesterday – Reset the Cow Debate
High resolution image can be downloaded from here. The artist, Anirban Bora has made a lovely image that depicts the horrendous mess that’s happening in India around the cow.
14th October 2018
A preliminary draft blueprint for the Abhinav Bharat Abhiyan (अभिनव भारत अभियान)
I mentioned that on 6 October 2018 a new movement for reform, called Abhinav Bharat Abhiyan (अभिनव भारत अभियान), was launched. Around 100 farmer leaders from north India had assembled.
The next step is to prepare the outline of a blueprint for reform. I’m drafting my inputs for this blueprint – below:
Blueprint for New India
अभिनव भारत का यह नक्शा हमारी व्यवस्था को पूर्ण रूप से बदलने के लिए बनाया जा रहा है.
इस अभिनव भारत का नक्शा बहुत ही सरल है, क्योंकि यह हमारी संस्कृति के मूल तत्वों से जुड़ा हुआ है. यही तत्त्व सारे विश्व में अपनाए गए हैं जहाँ भी कोई देश प्रगति कर रहा है. जिस प्रकार से विज्ञानं भारतीय नहीं होता,उसी प्रकार से अर्थशास्त्र या राजनीती भारतीय नहीं होती. जो भी तत्त्व श्रेष्ठा होते हैं वे सारे विश्व में अपनाये गए हैं. हमारे पूर्वजों ने शोध के पश्चात अर्थशास्त्र व् राजनीती के कुछ मूल तत्वों को खोजा था, जो सारे विश्व भर में लागु हो रहे हैं – परन्तु भारत में नहीं.
भारतीय संस्कृति के कुछ मूल तत्व
भारतीय संस्कृति में कुछ साधारण बातें हैं जो जो आज़ाद भारत की व्यवस्था में सम्मिलित नहीं हुईं, और जिनको हम सम्मिलित करना चाहते हैं.
1. जहां का राजा हो व्यापारी वहां की प्रजा हो भिखारी
हमारे यहां एक कहावत है कि “जहां का राजा हो व्यापारी वहां की प्रजा हो भिखारी”. यह कहावत बहुत महत्व रखती है क्योंकि इसमें राजनीती का निचोड़ है. राम राज्य में राजा केवल सुरक्षा और न्याय की व्यवस्था करता है. रामायण में राम कोई भी व्यापार नहीं चलाते थे.
केवल राम नाम जपने से भारत का कुछ नहीं होने वाला. राम राज्य के मूल तत्व क्या होते हैं यह हमें पहले समझना पड़ेगा.
हमारे देश का दुर्भाग्य यह हुआ कि 1947 के बाद हमारी सरकारों ने व्यापार का धंधा शुरू कर दिया. आज तक हमारी सरकारें व्यापारी बनी हुई हैं. यह सरकारें बैंक, होटल, एयरलाइन, कारखाने और अन्य किस्म के व्यापार चलाती हैं.
और जो काम सरकार को करना चाहिए वह नहीं करती. यहां कोई जवाबदेही नहीं है और सरकारी कर्मचारी देश को लूटने में मग्न है.
हमने एक विचित्र प्रकार की सरकार बना कर रखी है जहां पर सरकारी कर्मचारियों की नौकरी 35 साल तक पक्की रहती है और वे चाहे कुछ भी कर ले, नौकरी से नहीं निकले जा सकते. यह समझ नहीं आता कि हमने सरकारी नौकरों को सिर पर क्यों चढ़ा कर रखा हुआ है?
इसी वजह से हमारे देश की पुलिस जनता की रक्षा करने के बजाए, उन पर अत्याचार करती है. और न्याय में इतनी देरी हो जाती है कि जनता कोअपने जीवन के अंतर्गत न्याय ही नहीं मिलता.
2. शुभ लाभ
भारत में किसी भी दुकान में जाएं तो लक्ष्मी देवी के नीचे “शुभ लाभ” और स्वास्तिक बना रहता है. यह इसलिए होता है क्योंकि हमारी संस्कृति में लाभ को शुभ माना जाता है और नुकसान को अशुभ.
परंतु नेहरू लाभ को अशुभ मानते थे और उन्होंने समाजवाद को अपनाया जिसमें सरकार ही महत्वपूर्ण व्यापार (commanding heights of the economy) करती है और लाभ को अशुभ माना जाता है. उनकी बेटी इंदिरा गाँधी ने इस बात को और फैलाया और आज तक सरकार बैंक भी चलाती है. ये बैंक भारत के गरीब नागरिक को लूटने का मूल यन्त्र बन गए हैं, और हर साल सर्कार जनता के कर (tax) का पैसा इन बैंकों में उड़ेलती पाई जाती है.
सरकार हमारी नौकर होती है. सरकार का व्यापर से कोई मतलब नहीं होना चाहिए, उसको लाभ से कोई मतलब नहीं होना चाहिए. भारत की जनता अपने ग्राहक की सेवा करके ही मुनाफा पा सकती है. इससे वस्तुओं की कीमतें गिरती हैं और उनके किस्म, गुण, लक्षण व् स्वरूप निखरते हैं.
3. अंधेर नगरी चौपट राजा: टका सेर भाजी, टका सेर काजा
हमारी परंपरा के सरकारी कर्मचारियों की जवाबदेही होती थी. पर जवाबदेही पाने के कुछ नियम होते हैं. कौटिल्य के अर्थशास्त्र में लिखा है कि सबसे ऊंचे दर्जे के कर्मचारी और नीचे दर्जे के कर्मचारी के वेतन में 800 गुना अंतर होना चाहिए. यह भी लिखा है कि उच्च दर्जे के कर्मचारी यदि निर्धारित काम ना करें तो उनको नौकरी से तुरंत बर्खास्त करना होगा.
जिम्मेदारीपूर्ण पदों के लिए वेतनमान भी उसी अनुसार होने चाहिए. उच्च पदों पर बैठे अधिकारियों का वेतन अपेक्षाकृत कम होने से जवाबदेही और ईमानदारी दोनो का ही निर्धारण होना मुश्किल हो जाता है.
परंतु भारत की समाजवादी व्यवस्था में उच्च और नीचे के कर्मचारियों के वेतन में कोई ज्यादा अंतर नहीं है, और उच्च कर्मचारियों को (यानी कि IAS ऑफिसर्स को) नौकरी से नहीं निकाला जा सकता.
4. विनाशकाले विपरीत बुद्धि
हमारे भारत की संस्कृति की जो परंपराएं हैं वही आजकल के आधुनिक अर्थशास्त्र में पाई जाती हैं, परंतु भारत में परंपरा हम भूल गए और सबसे पीछे हो गए हैं . इतनी देर में बाकी देश इसी परंपरा के निचोड़ की, या दिशा की, पालन करते हुए बहुत आगे निकल चुके हैं.
नेहरू और बाकी समाजवादियों (जिनमें आज की सरकार का उल्लेख करना पढ़ेगा) की विपरीत बुद्धि ने भारत की दुर्गति इस प्रकार बना दी है कि यहां अब जीना ही मुश्किल हो गया है.
विपरीत बुद्धि से सर्वनाश होना निश्चित है – यह भी हमारी परंपरा मैं कहना है.
अब हम इस समाजवादी विपरीत बुद्धि को छोड़ अपनी परंपरा की मुख्य तत्वों को फिर अपनाएं और नए भारत का निर्माण करें.
अभिनव भारत की सरकार क्या करेगी और कैसे करेगी
सरकार क्या काम करे यह नए भारत के नक़्शे का पहला बिंदु होगा. अभिनव भारत की सरकार जनता की नौकर बनकर वही काम करेगी जो जो सरकार के लिए जायज़ हो और सौंपा गया हो – यानी हमारी सुरक्षा और न्याय, और शायद कुछ सड़के बनाना. उसके अलावा सारे काम जनता खुद करेगी. और सरकार को जो सौंपा जाये उसके लिए वह पूरी तरह जवाबदेह होगी.
अभिनव भारत की सरकार कभी व्यापर नहीं करेगी.
अभिनव भारत में हर गरीब को सरकार की तरफ से social insurance की हैसियत से कुछ सीमित संसाधन मिलेंगे जिससे वह frugal condition में जी पाये, और उनके बच्चों को अच्छे स्कूलों में जाने का अवसर मिलें . सरकार खुद स्कूल इत्यादि नहीं चलाएगी, गरीबों को school voucher मिलेंगे.
इसी प्रकार, सरकार हमारी सेहत का ध्यान नहीं करेगी, ना ही अस्पताल चलाएगी, परंतु जो गरीब से गरीब है उसके लिए social insurance की तरफ से कुछ health voucher का बंदोबस्त करेगी .
अभिनव भारत की सरकार जनता की नौकर की हैसियत से जनता को, यानि की अपने मालिक को , यह कभी नहीं कहेगी कि हम क्या खा सकते हैं, पी सकते हैं, पहन सकते हैं, और किस प्रकार से रहन सहन करेंगे. राम ना हिन्दू थे न मुस्लिम, और यदि राम राज्य में नास्तिक ही क्यों ना हो, राम का राजधर्म केवल सबको सुरक्षा और न्याय प्रदान करना था. उन्होंने कहीं नहीं कहा की उनके नाम पर इमारतें गिरायी जाएं. ऐसे लोग राक्षसः होते हैं, राम के धर्म के दुश्मन.
अभिनव भारत का दूसरा बिंदु होगा जवाबदेही.
अभिनव भारत में किसी भी सरकारी कर्मचारी की नौकरी पक्की नहीं होगी और यदि वह काम उचित रूप से नहीं करता तो उसको तुरंत नौकरी से निकाला जाएगा. इसी प्रकार से सारे विश्व में सरकारें चलती हैं.
विस्तार में क्या करना होगा?
अभिनव भारत बनाने के लिए हमें भारतीय संविधान को ध्यान से देखना पड़ेगा. उसमें पिछले 70 सालों में कई प्रकार के संशोधन हुए हैं जिनकी वजह से सरकार अपने कार्यक्षेत्र की सिमा के बहुत बाहर कार्य कर रही है. वह न केवल व्यापार कर रही है, वह किसानों को व्यापर करने से रोक रही है.
इस प्रकार की शक्तियां हम सरकार से वापस लेकर जनता को फिर सौंप देंगे.
यह रही अभिनव भारत के नक्शे की एक outline. विस्तार में इस नक्शे को भरने के लिए अच्छे अर्थशास्त्री और नीतिज्ञों से हम संपर्क करके इसको आगे बढ़ाएंगे.
IN THIS CONNECTION
My initial podcast in this connection is provided below. I’ll also make a video when I return to Melbourne.