Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Dhamma and Dharma as the ideology of Governance


The world today works in binaries. It also works in a way where the basic presumption of rationality , faith , economics and political governance are always measured on the touchstones of cultures , which though aspiring to be universal is actually far removed from the rest of the world .
This is specially true in relation to the discourse of Human Rights , which has been used increasingly as a tool against non western societies . In most cases anyone who even differs from the idea of every one in society being granted rights is dismissed as irrelevant or dangerous . Apart from the broader question that whether such things are fair ? and accepting there is nothing like fairness in global politics, the question arises is whether such a mature and realistic dissent is possible without it being apologia for secular and religious tyrants . It is my belief that it can be , and I hold Mahatma Gandhi and HH. The 14th  Dalai Lama as examples of those who have strongly articulated such points of view , though it is a pity that their ideas have not got the currency in academic circles as much as they deserve .In times when western economics and politics has mostly failed , it is therefore important to explore as to whether alternatives to the most basic social and political tools of governance of western society is possible.
It is apparent that the major difference between the Dhammic and Dharmic conceptions of the world is essentially a matter of structure. The method of governance while not being essentially different would definitely be different in terms of logic for the action which governs the ways of the state .
While Dhamma would stress on “Sila” as the prime motivator in the actions of the state thereby implying that actions of the state must innately be governed by conceptions of moral perceptions of the correctness of action , Dharma as a method of governance would largely be value neutral.
Interestingly Dr Ambedkar who compared both opted for Dhamma over Dharma because to his mind the existence of  “sila” gave a moral compass to the society including within it the conceptions of creation of a more equal and beneficial state. Swami Vivekananda on the other hand on comparing both seemed to opt for Dharma even though holding the conception of  Dhamma in great regard because he was of the view that the extension of unending equality and non-structuredness in society leads to an eventual collapse of social order.
In other words Dharma and Dhamma can be construed to be the same principle with different emphasis. While the priority of the first is to protect social order the second intends to create a more just society. This in itself does not mean that the first is conservative and the second progressive. We all know that in a live society to function both the above-mentioned forces are needed to create an ideal balance in society. Dharma and Dhamma to be facile are two sides of the same coin. A state to be successful must both protect social order as well as provide social equality . In other words an ideal state should both follow Dharma and Dhamma equally.
 History and experiences of history are not universal and linear , though every civilisation believes them to be so .Every civilisation believes that it’s values are universal and tries to impose it on the cultures / civilisations surrounding it on the assumption that those who do not hold such values are either barbarians or evil . This leads to the clashes between civilisations as indeed between civilisational values .What is freedom to one is licentiousness to the other and what is tradition to one is cruelty to the other .
Therefore as inheritors of an unique civilisation based on the conceptions of Dharma / Dhamma posited between the unbounded rights consciousness of West and the unique formalised ordered vision of the Confucian Far East, we have an unique duty to fulfil to the rest of the world. The duty to spread the word of Dharma/ Dhamma not only as a method to make people's lives better which indeed they do but also to promote a governmental structure which balances individualism and communitarianism .
For too long we have been silent onlookers between such great conflicts which have been playing out in the world in the name of development as well as for “human rights”. We have kept satisfied and silent while our ways , our lives , our customs , our norms , our histories have been assailed on the aggressive flail of western human rights ideology , which on many occasions have been enforced by the use of force. All the while we knew that Dharma/ Dhamma as an alternate  political tool of organisation can effectively provide the answer to such conflicts. But possibly we (the receivers of 2000 years of shared wisdom) have kept quiet since we all deeply know that “Satyameva Jayate” or “Truth always Triumphs” and the truth will eventually dawn on those who aggressively promote their ideologies and the their business interests in the name of human rights consciousness , all the while steadily disregarding all the high values which they preach when violence is directed against us , as societies and as people. The problem is that this deep silence has been always interpreted by those who want to destroy our very existence as a sort of inertia and backwardness and a sign of darkness which envelopes all our societies . It is my hope that this will be the conference when the lamp will be lit for the future of Dharma / Dhamma as a method of governance of everyone in the world .
Dharma/ Dhamma teaches us that it is important to have a system whereby individual growth is always balanced by the individual's responsibility towards this community, and the power of the government is counterbalanced by the obligation of the government to follow norms of  responsible and just behaviour towards every living being in the society. Unlike models of government which presently hold the field claiming themselves to be universal and those which  aspire to hold the field claiming themselves to be universal , Dharma / Dhamma teaches us that though there can be universality of aspiration for a universal model of governance, but a true, genuine and viable government has to arise from within the norms and customs of the society , where the government exists. Dharma/ Dhamma calls for the creation of an ideal balance which results in harm any or all parts of society without the predominance of any specific section. In the world of shrill voices this is possibly the sanest voices of them all. Dharma / Dhamma is the only idea which can bring peace and security to the world today.
Needless to say that today our unique vision of the world stands in great danger. It is under challenge from various quarters and various ideologies ( all of which believe in the use of violence of some sort to achieve their ends) including increasing rights consciousness without corresponding knowledge of one's society, which is streaming into our societies like a flood. However we as individual societies are unable to stem the tide since today we are a house divided amongst ourselves. We are all trying in our individual ways to somehow offset the oncoming deluge , but till today we have failed to craft a common response and offer a constructive model of governance as an alternative to the prevailing ones in the world.
Today, we have to retrace the steps of the greatest dharmic ruler of all “ Asoka Priyadarsi”, who nearly 2300 years back was not satisfied by personally following the way of Dharma /    Dhamma but formulated a methodology of governance which could be applied in the process of governance of states incorporating the ideals of Dharma / Dhamma, and most importantly took it to the world as an alternative way of governing a society. It is the call of the world and the demand of the times that we the inheritors of the legacy of Bhagwan Buddha and Asoka Priyadarsi Devanampriya take his work forward.



Swadeshi and Crony Capitalism


Crony capitalism is not anything which is new. It is been a part of modern Western Anglo-Saxon variation of the market system from its very inception. However in different times and in different cases and under various different regimes it has evolved to take a pernicious form whereby it has attempted to capture the entire market system for the benefit of the very few.
Cronyism if we can call it that has been a part of economic structure from the time modern economics has been formulated. Those who have been close to the government have always benefited from the rulers munificence. In modern terms that would mean business people who were close to close presently governing the country managing to control all the levers of the economy.
In India the very basis of the economy as we know it from colonial times has been based on crony capitalism. Originally when the British were in India British companies which were close to the then British rulers were patronised largely and substantially. This obviously gave rise to a large amount of hostility from Indian businessmen who were more interested in having a level playing field in the growing economy of India. The assertion of Indian business asking for a level playing field along with British businesses in India came to be known as swadeshi. It is in this spirit of swadeshi that various scientists and businessmen in India set up Indian businesses to take on the British companies who had a stranglehold on the Indian economy. These businessmen also played a sterling role in the Indian independence movement. They were also at the forefront of acquiring and pushing technology for the purposes of spreading manufacturing and science through the country. A large number of them went on to endow educational institutions for the spread of science in every region where they worked. In many ways these swadeshi entrepreneurs were responsible for the fact that after India achieved independence the basic manufacturing sector of the country could be created in such a short period of time.
However the downside to this creation of an Indian business class was that they were Intricately linked with the Indian National Congress. Even before independence it was rumoured that every famous Congress leader had one or more famous industrialist as his friend. It is a known fact that during the entire independence movement a large number of Congress leaders did advocate the cause of such industrialists. In many ways at that point of time it was perceived as a patriotic  act of promoting Indian businesses over foreign businesses. In the year 1945 the top Indian industrialists of the country came together and find a declaration called the Bombay plan. The Bombay plan was in two parts and the basic thrust of the Bombay plan was that while the industrialists would be responsible for production of goods in the country the government would take the responsibility for distribution. It was an evident attempt to carve out the oncoming independent Indian economy. An apparent reading of the names would indicate that the roster of the industrial houses which signed on to the Bombay plan and those who are known to be very close to the present political establishment of the Congress has largely remained unchanged give-and-take one or two names.
Thereafter after the independence of India the links between these industrial houses and the Congress governments continued to grow. So much so that Congress governments were accused of acting at the behest of such industrial houses. It is interesting to note that even at the height of socialism which had been adopted as the governing credo of the country such industrial houses were never touched. Pandit Nehru justified the same saying that though he would like to have socialism in the country but going after the existing industrialists would mean de-stabilising the economy which he was not inclined to do. With Mrs. Indira Gandhi , though socialist rhetoric became more and more pronounced and efforts were made to shore up Public Sector Units but again the said industrial houses were largely left untouched. There were large amount of nationalisation of industries and some point out that the said process of nationalisation is an indicator as to the genuineness of the commitment of Indira Gandhi towards promoting socialism in the country. However coincidentally this period of promoting socialism interestingly coincided with the same time when a large number of these old industrial houses attempted to prop up political opposition to the then existing Congress government. The fact that the Swatantra party had been gathering up support of Indian businesses would definitely have weighed in the mind of Mrs. Gandhi when she decided to go after the industrialists who had till then form the backbone of the economy and the economic and financial arm of the Congress Party. It is also around that point of time that new industrialists were attempted to be promoted so as to be able to take on the old disaffected industrialists who were then attempting to prop up an opposition to the regime. Some of these new industrialists who been promoted at that point of time are today some of the biggest industrial houses in the country.
The imposition of what is today known as the License Permit Raj was formulated as a means to  handicap the old industrialists against the new industrialists which were being promoted by the then government. The government went out of its way to promote these new industrialists and facilitate their business interests in the country. Cronyism had been converted into a matter of economic policy.
From the time of 1984 to 1998 and specially after 1991 winds of liberalisation were introduced into the Indian economy. Most of the liberalising process was brought in more as a result of compulsion rather than conviction. However though the economy was supposedly opened or liberalised there was no movement to ensure that the playing field was ever levelled. In other words while the economy was opened up for investment from foreign companies there was no concrete move to ensure that a common person in the country could with ease do business. Even while doing business for big corporates were made relatively easy,  small businesses continued to find it difficult to do business in this country. The reason for this was very simple as the government was not interested in increasing competition to its cronies who had more or less captured the market.
The NDA regime from 1998 to 2004 was the sole exception where along with moves to make it easy for investment by both Indian and foreign investors in India,  it was coupled with a genuine move to ensure that a common business person who was interested in doing business in the country could genuinely do business without the government interfering in it. It is during this period that most of the big corporate's of the 2000s were born. In fact it is these group of companies which have threatened the status quo of the old businesses in the Indian economy. It was during this period of time that genuine improvement of infrastructure took place because the philosophy of the government was that common people should have access to better roads so as to increase their business. The idea of a market in the NDA regime was a market of the people and not a market simply controlled by the interests of the cronies of the government. It is true that in that large parts of the economy were delicensed so as to facilitate the common people or an ordinary businessman to participate in the process of creating business. The thrust of the NDA regime was to create a Swadeshi market. A free market which would be bottom-up and would be spread across to all participants. It would give the opportunity to every person to be in effective participant in the Indian economy. This can in many ways be called Swadeshi 2.0 version in the area of market economics in India.
However all this remarkably changed when the first UPA government came to power. In the name of working for the “aam admi” the government from 2004 onwards has reinforced license permit Raj. The objective of such reinforcement has been to ensure that its cronies are the only beneficiaries of the expanding Indian economy. The thrust of allowing everybody to do business which was the major focus of the NDA regime was furiously turned away for supposedly the betterment of the poor. The major beneficiaries of all the pro-poor schemes were the old cronies of the government. The old cronies of the Congress were back with a bang. This entire process was cloaked in the magic words of being pro-poor. Some of the biggest scams which were to haunt the UPA were to be initiated during this point of time. It's old cronies wanted to catch up for the lost period of 1998 to 2004 which had been a substantial period of growth of the Indian economy. However because of clever media management and because of the shine of the leftists who supported the government the scams did not come to light. This had the effect of convincing both the government and its cronies that they could actually get away with any thing they wanted.
The last vestiges of the pretensions which cloaked the first issue UPA government were given up during the second UPA government. The second government has been a government whose agenda has been driven by the cronies to the government. The government has given up's duty to even frame economic policy since its economic policy is being framed by cronies who have achieved such power in decision-making of the economy that the entire government is hostage to them. These cronies have captured the regulators of the market and have captured the policy framers of the government as well. The rule of cronies have resulted in complete paralysis of constructive decision-making. Interestingly this government has framed all its policies to either help its cronies or to bail them out. It has used either free-market rhetoric or populist rhetoric to suit itself and to disguise its hidden agenda of helping its cronies. In every aspect of the economy whether it be of the auction of spectrum, making available land at cheap prices, making available coal blocks at throwaway prices, organising India's aviation policy to suit a few operators, gifting away India's infrastructure projects to its cronies, allowing foreign investment in media and retail to bail out its cronies,  it has conveniently formulated its logic and rhetoric to suit itself , sometimes on populist grounds and at other times on free market ideas. It has played politics of “economic votebanks” very cleverly for the benefit of itself and it’s crony businesspeople .
As a backlash against the exposure of scams which continue to pour out of the cupboard of the government every day , there are those who today blame the existence of market forces as being responsible for cronies. Some of these people are those who have benefited the most by the actions of the regime of the UPA. This solution advocated by them is to bring in more licenses and permits and to bring in greater state control that is in other words the solution to crony capitalism are measures which would increase cronyism. This cannot be effective answer. The answer is to look for hard measures which has to be implemented in the Indian economy.
For the purposes of this article I would suggest four :
(a)    the government should ensure that the economy is governed by regulators who are not captured by business interests. The government should ensure that big businesses don't get to frame government policy and the sole criteria for framing economic policy for the government is that one which benefits people of the country.
(b)   The government should ensure that more and more people join business and have the ability to take part effectively in the economy by increasing their business and being able to promote their business interests. One of the biggest roadblocks for this is the availability of loans. It is well-known that while most of the credit for business of this country is enjoyed by a few industrial houses the common people and the small businessman does not have access to loans or credit. It is also a known fact that while industrial houses can get licenses very easily to participate in the economy a small person and or a small businessman is effectively kept out by this license permit procedure.
(c)    It should be the objective of every government that in issues including the allocation of national assets and wealth the benefit of such asset and wealth is ploughed back into the community and not sent to the coffers of the government. It is also important that the most affected should have a say in the allocation process .The process should be to make the economy accountable to the citizens of the country and not controlled and only used for the benefit of a few businesses who are close to the government.
(d)   Lastly it is high time that we explore alternate models for carrying out business based on older Indian models of collective entities. This is important because the older Indian entities included clear, conscious, social control over business interests which is lacking in the case of the Anglo American methodology of carrying out business through companies. Needless to say companies like the other invention of Western Europe the state has no inbuilt ethics and is therefore prone to be misused by the most powerful. If indeed we have two stop crony capitalism and ensure that the society and the people have a say in framing their economy, it is important in the long run to change the topic of conversation as to how economies are run. Allowing socio corporate entities more closer to Indian roots which would automatically reflect ethical code values within it is the need of the hour. It is the time that we start thinking afresh . We could call this the next step in the evolution of the Swadeshi market system or Swadeshi 3.0.

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Questions about the National Advisory Council


It seems that the Indian National Congress’s honeymoon with “civil society” is coming to an end . The game of using “civil society” as a cover to push radical left agenda on to India is slowly being exposed for what it actually was , a club of pro Congress ideologues with strong far left sympathies ( I am consciously not using the word “Maoist” here….though the company they keep do raise suspicious questions about that too ) pushing their pet agendas. The Apex body of this “club” is the “National Advisory Council” whose Chairperson is Smt. Sonia Gandhi , the Chairperson of the United Progressive Alliance . The NAC to the present UPA 2 Government seems to be the fount of wisdom of all that is good and progressive  .It is the purported defender of the poor and a shield of the weak. It is the highest policy framing and making body of the government . It periodically holds forth on all issues in India from food security , to communal violence to rights of domestic servants .It is the oracle of the jholawala brigade albeit with their foreign accents intact.

The NAC is a body which is constituted under the Government of India by a government order with it’s Chairperson holding the “rank and status” of an Union Minister. Infact the Chairperson in terms of Government order is clearly entitled to salary , pay , allowances and other facilities which a member of the Union Council of Ministers is entitled to . The question is what is the need for that , is offcourse completely redundant considering who the Chairperson is .

The time has come to question who is this National Advisory Council ? Who are it’s members ? and what are the benefits do these so called pro poor activists get as remuneration for being members of the “National Advisory Council”?

The members of the NAC in terms of the notification dated 31st May , 2010 are : M.S.Swaminathan , M.P , Dr.Ram Dayal Munda M.P., Narendra Jadhav , Member of the Planning Commission , Professor Pramod Tandon , of the North Eastern Hill University , Dr.Jean Dreze of the G.B.Pant Social Science Institute , Allahabad , Aruna Roy of the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan , Rajsamand , Madhav Gadgill , Agharkar Research Institute , Pune , N.C.Saxena , Dr.A.K.Shiv Kumar , Advisor ,UNICEF , Deep Joshi , Anu Aga ,Thermax India Ltd. , Farah Naqvi , Harsh Mander , Mirai Chatterjee , Coordinator , SEWA Ahmedabad .

The question is obviously what is the background of these people ? where do they come from ?  An interesting thing is with the exception of Anu Agha , who was rated by Forbes Magazine as one of the 40 most wealthy persons in India , Aruna Roy and Harsh Mander every person has a degree from a foreign University , Swaminathan from Cambridge , Ram Dayal Munda from Indiana University , Pramod Tandon from the University of California , Jean Dreze from the University of Essex , Madhav Gadgill from Harvard , N.C.Saxena from Oxford , Shiv Kumar from Harvard , Deep Joshi from MIT , Farah Naqvi from Columbia and Mirai Chatterjee from Harvard and Johns Hopkins . This offcourse does not mean that they are not qualified to deal with the problems of India , it just shows how “elite” “the club” is . Needless to say not every Indian has an education at Harvard , Columbia or Oxford . It is almost as if the NAC is a chosen elite who have selectively chosen  to be the repository of all that is good and progressive in ‘India” .This is apparent by the latest article written by Aruna Roy and Nikhil Dey in Outlook magazine , it was clear that the members of the NAC felt piqued that others can claim to be representatives of the “civil society” besides the chosen few at NAC. This arrogance is written over the formation , constitution and workings of the NAC .

It would also be interesting to note as to what are the perks given to NAC members which would further drive home the point that most people come from a very similar background . The first , all NAC members are entitled to Rs.1000 for every day of the meeting of the NAC , second , two and fro air fare , third , rent of a single room at a state guest house /ITDC Hotel / India International Centre / India Habitat Center and four , allowance of Rs.750 for conveyance allowance . The fact that the last two places are mentioned in the list of possible accommodations clearly are evidence a set of entitlement which normal poor Indians do not have . All of those who live and work in Delhi know very well , that the people who have access to accommodations in either the India International Center or the India Habitat Center are not the “aam admi”of the city . Holding meetings about the state of the poor , while jetting in and out of Delhi and staying in ITDC Hotels on tax payers money is apparently hypocritical to say the least , specially when an average Indian actually earns less than Rs.1727 a year . It reminds one of “Caviar Communism”.

Now the next big question is what does it do ? In the words of the Government order dated 31st May , 2004 it was to (i) monitor the progress of the implementation of the common minimum programme  and , (ii) to provide inputs for the formation of policy by the government and to provide support to the government in it’s legislative business . The first is obviously redundant in the UPA 2 Government , therefore the present NAC’s duty is to frame policy and laws .In other words it is to allow concerned citizens to insert themselves in the legislative process of the country so that laws can be framed which would benefit society . If that be so , why is the government so reluctant to entertain Anna Hazare or Baba Ramdev’s claim , because to my knowledge they also want the same thing . It cannot be that you put up some whom you like at the India International Center or ITDC Hotels and tear gas others whom you do not . What is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander . Once you open the doors to extra constitutional authorities who are constituted and composed of people based on no objective criteria except possibly they are close to the political dispensation , it then becomes a futile discussion to say , that others be kept out of it . If you let one set of people who are not answerable to anyone but themselves frame and suggest laws , what stops others from wanting to do the same . The argument for qualification and merit does not hold as everyone knows and I am sure that the members of the present NAC would agree merit alone cannot be a consideration for appointment , which they themselves have touted all along . In any case what makes Deep Joshi or Harsh Mander more qualified then Baba Ramdev and Anna Hazare to draft legislation . The only possible answer to that is that the group is meant for people of a similar dispensation and that is what Aruna Roy and Nikhil Dey more or less say in their latest article in Outlook . The thinking that those with the dispensation of the members of the NAC know best for what is needed for India is down right patronizing and more importantly smells of entitlement socialism that is the poor have to be saved from themselves …because they can be lead astray….by the sort of people like Baba Ramdev and Anna Hazare , which is offensive to say the least .

The Council is given carte blanche by Government order to engage whosoever it wants to and invite whosoever it wishes to participate in it’s deliberation . There is no restriction at all .Yet , this very government has problems with the composition of the Lok Pal drafting panel. In other words the framing of policy and laws is fit enough only to be done by a chosen few selected members of the “club”. This smells of Babalog entitlement syndrome at it’s worst .

The Government order further provides that all expenditure of the NAC is going to be directly paid through the Prime Minster’s Office and by the Government of India . But most incredibly the Government order dated 31st May , 2004 specifically states that “the Council….would be serviced by the Prime Minister’s Office”. If this is the status that can be given for supposed policy framers and those proposing legislation , why this complete disquiet about allowing Baba Ramdev and Anna Hazare to draft bills . It  is apparent that Baba Ramdev and Anna Hazare are definitely infinitely more representative of the people than the present members of the NAC.

What is most interesting is to note how powerful is this committee ? In the official recorded minutes released on the website of NAC for the meeting dated 24th September , 2010 , it is recorded that the Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission , Montek Singh Ahluwalia , Alka Sirohi , Secretary Food and Public Distribution , D.K.Sikri , Secretary , Women and Child Development and Kiran Dhingra , Secretary , Housing and Urban Policy Alleviation , made presentations regarding their viewpoints before the Committee . In other words you have the entire gamut of the highest bureaucrats of the Government of India , appearing before an unelected , unanswerable group of persons , who are appointed by an office order by the Government  , and , who are incharge of framing laws in this country , and , these are the same people who talk about unreasonable demands of Lok Pal drafting committee and unelected Ombudsmen like Lokpal being dangerous and a “Frankenstein”as Aruna Roy famously said .

The government has to realize that running agendas of the Government through extra constitutional authorities goes against the very spirit of constitutionalism , limited governance and a system of checks and balances . Allowing , unelected , unanswerable , arbitrary group of people to frame legislation for India , is not only a bad idea but it also reeks of arrogance . To use Government money through the Prime Minister’s office to “draft bills” is a stupendous waste of government money . To maintain an entire staff through the Prime Minister’s Office for a “self perpetuating clique” is just not acceptable in a democracy . Who are these people in the NAC ? Why are they there ? What was the selection process ? How many applied ? How was the selection made ? These are some questions which swirl all round and which need to be answered  . I do not remember seeing advertisements for selection to the NAC .

In the times when the Government is raising questions about the trusts of Anna Hazare and Baba Ramdev and their sources of funding , let us first start asking questions about the transparency of the NAC as an initial step . Otherwise the cries from the vast majority of  “poor , misguided and gullible” Indians is bound to get deafening , that this Government has two rules for India , one for the common people and one for those close to the political establishment.

Sunday, September 11, 2011

My Plan of Campaign - Swami Vivekananda






This is one of my most favorite tracts on India and it rings so true even today considering it is more than a hundred years old ...by Swami Vivekananda.

MY PLAN OF CAMPAIGN
(Delivered at the Victoria Hall, Madras)

As the other day we could not proceed, owing to the crowd, I shall take this opportunity of thanking the people of Madras for the uniform kindness that I have received at their hands. I do not know how better to express my gratitude for the beautiful words that have been expressed in the addresses than by praying to the Lord to make me worthy of the kind and generous expressions and by working all my life for the cause of our religion and to serve our motherland; and may the Lord make me worthy of them.

With all my faults, I think I have a little bit of boldness. I had a message from India to the West, and boldly I gave it to the American and the English peoples. I want, before going into the subject of the day, to speak a few bold words to you all. There have been certain circumstances growing around me, tending to thwart me, oppose my progress, and crush me out of existence if they could. Thank God they have failed, as such attempts will always fail. But there has been, for the last three years, a certain amount of misunderstanding, and so long as I was in foreign lands, I held my peace and did not even speak one word; but now, standing upon the soil of my motherland, I want to give a few words of explanation. Not that I care what the result will be of these words — not that I care what feeling I shall evoke from you by these words. I care very little, for I am the same Sannyâsin that entered your city about four years ago with this staff and Kamandalu; the same broad world is before me. Without further preface let me begin.

First of all, I have to say a few words about the Theosophical Society. It goes without saying that a certain amount of good work has been done to India by the Society; as such every Hindu is grateful to it, and especially to Mrs. Besant; for though I know very little of her, yet what little I know has impressed me with the idea that she is a sincere well-wisher of this motherland of ours, and that she is doing the best in her power to raise our country. For that, the eternal gratitude of every trueborn Indian is hers, and all blessings be on her and hers for ever. But that is one thing — and joining the Society of the Theosophists is another. Regard and estimation and love are one thing, and swallowing everything any one has to say, without reasoning, without criticising, without analysing, is quite another. There is a report going round that the Theosophists helped the little achievements of mine in America and England. I have to tell you plainly that every word of it is wrong, every word of it is untrue. We hear so much tall talk in this world, of liberal ideas and sympathy with differences of opinion. That is very good, but as a fact, we find that one sympathises with another only so long as the other believes in everything he has to say, but as soon as he dares to differ, that sympathy is gone, that love vanishes. There are others, again, who have their own axes to grind, and if anything arises in a country which prevents the grinding of them, their hearts burn, any amount of hatred comes out, and they do not know what to do. What harm does it do to the Christian missionary that the Hindus are trying to cleanse their own houses? What injury will it do to the Brâhmo Samâj and other reform bodies that the Hindus are trying their best to reform themselves? Why should they stand in opposition? Why should they be the greatest enemies of these movements? Why? — I ask. It seems to me that their hatred and jealousy are so bitter that no why or how can be asked there.

Four years ago, when I, a poor, unknown, friendless Sannyasin was going to America, going beyond the waters to America without any introductions or friends there, I called on the leader of the Theosophical Society. Naturally I thought he, being an American and a lover of India, perhaps would give me a letter of introduction to somebody there. He asked me, "Will you join my Society?" "No," I replied, "how can I? For I do not believe in most of your doctrines." "Then, I am sorry, I cannot do anything for you," he answered. That was not paving the way for me. I reached America, as you know, through the help of a few friends of Madras. Most of them are present here. Only one is absent, Mr. Justice Subramania Iyer, to whom my deepest gratitude is due. He has the insight of a genius and is one of the staunchest friends I have in this life, a true friend indeed, a true child of India. I arrived in America several months before the Parliament of Religions began. The money I had with me was little, and it was soon spent. Winter approached, and I had only thin summer clothes. I did not know what to do in that cold, dreary climate, for if I went to beg in the streets, the result would have been that I would have been sent to jail. There I was with the last few dollars in my pocket. I sent a wire to my friends in Madras. This came to be known to the Theosophists, and one of them wrote, "Now the devil is going to die; God bless us all." Was that paving the way for me? I would not have mentioned this now; but, as my countrymen wanted to know, it must come out. For three years I have not opened my lips about these things; silence has been my motto; but today the thing has come out. That was not all. I saw some Theosophists in the Parliament of Religions, and I wanted to talk and mix with them. I remember the looks of scorn which were on their faces, as much as to say, "What business has the worm to be here in the midst of the gods?" After I had got name and fame at the Parliament of Religions, then came tremendous work for me; but at every turn the Theosophists tried to cry me down. Theosophists were advised not to come and hear my lectures, for thereby they would lose all sympathy of the Society, because the laws of the esoteric section declare that any man who joins that esoteric section should receive instruction from Kuthumi and Moria, of course through their visible representatives — Mr. Judge and Mrs. Besant — so that, to join the esoteric section means to surrender one's independence. Certainly I could not do any such thing, nor could I call any man a Hindu who did any such thing. I had a great respect for Mr. Judge. He was a worthy man, open, fair, simple, and he was the best representative the Theosophists ever had. I have no right to criticise the dispute between him and Mrs. Besant when each claims that his or her Mahâtmâ is right. And the strange part of it is that the same Mahatma is claimed by both. Lord knows the truth: He is the Judge, and no one has the right to pass judgement when the balance is equal. Thus they prepared the way for me all over America!

They joined the other opposition — the Christian missionaries. There is not one black lie imaginable that these latter did not invent against me. They blackened my character from city to city, poor and friendless though I was in a foreign country. They tried to oust me from every house and to make every man who became my friend my enemy. They tried to starve me out; and I am sorry to say that one of my own countrymen took part against me in this. He is the leader of a reform party in India. This gentleman is declaring every day, "Christ has come to India." Is this the way Christ is to come to India? Is this the way to reform India? And this gentleman I knew from my childhood; he was one of my best friends; when I saw him — I had not met for a long time one of my countrymen — I was so glad, and this was the treatment I received from him. The day the Parliament cheered me, the day I became popular in Chicago, from that day his tone changed; and in an underhand way, he tried to do everything he could to injure me. Is that the way that Christ will come to India? Is that the lesson that he had learnt after sitting twenty years at the feet of Christ? Our great reformers declare that Christianity and Christian power are going to uplift the Indian people. Is that the way to do it? Surely, if that gentleman is an illustration, it does not look very hopeful.

One word more: I read in the organ of the social reformers that I am called a Shudra and am challenged as to what right a Shudra has to become a Sannyasin. To which I reply: I trace my descent to one at whose feet every Brahmin lays flowers when he utters the words — यमाय धर्मराजाय चित्रगुप्ताय वै नमः — and whose descendants are the purest of Kshatriyas. If you believe in your mythology or your Paurânika scriptures, let these so-called reformers know that my caste, apart from other services in the past, ruled half of India for centuries. If my caste is left out of consideration, what will there be left of the present-day civilisation of India? In Bengal alone, my blood has furnished them with their greatest philosopher, the greatest poet, the greatest historian, the greatest archaeologist, the greatest religious preacher; my blood has furnished India with the greatest of her modern scientists. These detractors ought to have known a little of our own history, and to have studied our three castes, and learnt that the Brahmin, the Kshatriya, and the Vaishya have equal right to be Sannyasins: the Traivarnikas have equal right to the Vedas. This is only by the way. I just refer to this, but I am not at all hurt if they call me a Shudra. It will be a little reparation for the tyranny of my ancestors over the poor. If I am a Pariah, I will be all the more glad, for I am the disciple of a man, who — the Brahmin of Brahmins — wanted to cleanse the house of a Pariah. Of course the Pariah would not allow him; how could he let this Brahmin Sannyasin come and cleanse his house! And this man woke up in the dead of night, entered surreptitiously the house of this Pariah, cleansed his latrine, and with his long hair wiped the place, and that he did day after day in order that he might make himself the servant of all. I bear the feet of that man on my head; he is my hero; that hero's life I will try to imitate. By being the servant of all, a Hindu seeks to uplift himself. That is how the Hindus should uplift the masses, and not by looking for any foreign influence. Twenty years of occidental civilisation brings to my mind the illustration of the man who wants to starve his own friend in a foreign land, simply because this friend is popular, simply because he thinks that this man stands in the way of his making money. And the other is the illustration of what genuine, orthodox Hinduism itself will do at home. Let any one of our reformers bring out that life, ready to serve even a Pariah, and then I will sit at his feet and learn, and not before that. One ounce of practice is worth twenty thousand tons of big talk.

Now I come to the reform societies in Madras. They have been very kind to me. They have given me very kind words, and they have pointed out, and I heartily agree with them, that there is a difference between the reformers of Bengal and those of Madras. Many of you will remember what I have very often told you, that Madras is in a very beautiful state just now. It has not got into the play of action and reaction as Bengal has done. Here there is steady and slow progress all through; here is growth, and not reaction. In many cases, end to a certain extent, there is a revival in Bengal; but in Madras it is not a revival, it is a growth, a natural growth. As such, I entirely agree with what the reformers point out as the difference between the two peoples; but there is one difference which they do not understand. Some of these societies, I am afraid, try to intimidate me to join them. That is a strange thing for them to attempt. A man who has met starvation face to face for fourteen years of his life, who has not known where he will get a meal the next day and where to sleep, cannot be intimidated so easily. A man, almost without clothes, who dared to live where the thermometer registered thirty degrees below zero, without knowing where the next meal was to come from, cannot be so easily intimidated in India. This is the first thing I will tell them — I have a little will of my own. I have my little experience too; and I have a message for the world which I will deliver without fear and without care for the future. To the reformers I will point out that I am a greater reformer than any one of them. They want to reform only little bits. I want root-and-branch reform. Where we differ is in the method. Theirs is the method of destruction, mine is that of construction. I do not believe in reform; I believe in growth. I do not dare to put myself in the position of God and dictate to our society, "This way thou shouldst move and not that." I simply want to be like the squirrel in the building of Râma's bridge, who was quite content to put on the bridge his little quota of sand-dust. That is my position. This wonderful national machine has worked through ages, this wonderful river of national life is flowing before us. Who knows, and who dares to say whether it is good and how it shall move? Thousands of circumstances are crowding round it, giving it a special impulse, making it dull at one time and quicker at another. Who dares command its motion? Ours is only to work, as the Gita says, without looking for results. Feed the national life with the fuel it wants, but the growth is its own; none can dictate its growth to it. Evils are plentiful in our society, but so are there evils in every other society. Here the earth is soaked sometimes with widows' tears; there in the West, the air is rent with the sighs of the unmarried. Here poverty is the great bane of life; there the life-weariness of luxury is the great bane that is upon the race. Here men want to commit suicide because they have nothing to eat; there they commit suicide because they have so much to eat. Evil is everywhere; it is like chronic rheumatism. Drive it from the foot, it goes to the head; drive it from there, it goes somewhere else. It is a question of chasing it from place to place; that is all. Ay, children, to try to remedy evil is not the true way. Our philosophy teaches that evil and good are eternally conjoined, the obverse and the reverse of the same coin. If you have one, you must have the other; a wave in the ocean must be at the cost of a hollow elsewhere. Nay, all life is evil. No breath can be breathed without killing some one else; not a morsel of food can be eaten without depriving some one of it. This is the law; this is philosophy. Therefore the only thing we can do is to understand that all this work against evil is more subjective than objective. The work against evil is more educational than actual, however big we may talk. This, first of all, is the idea of work against evil; and it ought to make us calmer, it ought to take fanaticism out of our blood. The history of the world teaches us that wherever there have been fanatical reforms, the only result has been that they have defeated their own ends. No greater upheaval for the establishment of right and liberty can be imagined than the war for the abolition of slavery in America. You all know about it. And what has been its results? The slaves are a hundred times worse off today than they were before the abolition. Before the abolition, these poor negroes were the property of somebody, and, as properties, they had to be looked after, so that they might not deteriorate. Today they are the property of nobody. Their lives are of no value; they are burnt alive on mere presences. They are shot down without any law for their murderers; for they are niggers, they are not human beings, they are not even animals; and that is the effect of such violent taking away of evil by law or by fanaticism. Such is the testimony of history against every fanatical movement, even for doing good. I have seen that. My own experience has taught me that. Therefore I cannot join any one of these condemning societies. Why condemn? There are evils in every society; everybody knows it. Every child of today knows it; he can stand upon a platform and give us a harangue on the awful evils in Hindu Society. Every uneducated foreigner who comes here globe-trotting takes a vanishing railway view of India and lectures most learnedly on the awful evils in India. We admit that there are evils. Everybody can show what evil is, but he is the friend of mankind who finds a way out of the difficulty. Like the drowning boy and the philosopher — when the philosopher was lecturing him, the boy cried, "Take me out of the water first" — so our people cry: "We have had lectures enough, societies enough, papers enough; where is the man who will lend us a hand to drag us out? Where is the man who really loves us? Where is the man who has sympathy for us?" Ay, that man is wanted. That is where I differ entirely from these reform movements. For a hundred years they have been here. What good has been done except the creation of a most vituperative, a most condemnatory literature? Would to God it was not here! They have criticised, condemned, abused the orthodox, until the orthodox have caught their tone and paid them back in their own coin; and the result is the creation of a literature in every vernacular which is the shame of the race, the shame of the country. Is this reform? Is this leading the nation to glory? Whose fault is this?

There is, then, another great consideration. Here in India, we have always been governed by kings; kings have made all our laws. Now the kings are gone, and there is no one left to make a move. The government dare not; it has to fashion its ways according to the growth of public opinion. It takes time, quite a long time, to make a healthy, strong, public opinion which will solve its own problems; and in the interim we shall have to wait. The whole problem of social reform, therefore, resolves itself into this: where are those who want reform? Make them first. Where are the people? The tyranny of a minority is the worst tyranny that the world ever sees. A few men who think that certain things are evil will not make a nation move. Why does not the nation move? First educate the nation, create your legislative body, and then the law will be forthcoming. First create the power, the sanction from which the law will spring. The kings are gone; where is the new sanction, the new power of the people? Bring it up. Therefore, even for social reform, the first duty is to educate the people, and you will have to wait till that time comes. Most of the reforms that have been agitated for during the past century have been ornamental. Every one of these reforms only touches the first two castes, and no other. The question of widow marriage would not touch seventy per cent of the Indian women, and all such questions only reach the higher castes of Indian people who are educated, mark you, at the expense of the masses. Every effort has been spent in cleaning their own houses. But that is no reformation. You must go down to the basis of the thing, to the very root of the matter. That is what I call radical reform. Put the fire there and let it burn upwards and make an Indian nation. And the solution of the problem is not so easy, as it is a big and a vast one. Be not in a hurry, this problem has been known several hundred years.

Today it is the fashion to talk of Buddhism and Buddhistic agnosticism, especially in the South. Little do they dream that this degradation which is with us today has been left by Buddhism. This is the legacy which Buddhism has left to us. You read in books written by men who had never studied the rise and fall of Buddhism that the spread of Buddhism was owing to the wonderful ethics and the wonderful personality of Gautama Buddha. I have every respect and veneration for Lord Buddha, but mark my words, the spread of Buddhism was less owing to the doctrines and the personality of the great preacher, than to the temples that were built, the idols that were erected, and the gorgeous ceremonials that were put before the nation. Thus Buddhism progressed. The little fire-places in the houses in which the people poured their libations were not strong enough to hold their own against these gorgeous temples and ceremonies; but later on the whole thing degenerated. It became a mass of corruption of which I cannot speak before this audience; but those who want to know about it may see a little of it in those big temples, full of sculptures, in Southern India; and this is all the inheritance we have from the Buddhists.

Then arose the great reformer Shankarâchârya and his followers, and during these hundreds of years, since his time to the present day, there has been the slow bringing back of the Indian masses to the pristine purity of the Vedantic religion. These reformers knew full well the evils which existed, yet they did not condemn. They did not say, "All that you have is wrong, and you must throw it away." It can never be so. Today I read that my friend Dr. Barrows says that in three hundred years Christianity overthrew the Roman and Greek religious influences. That is not the word of a man who has seen Europe, and Greece, and Rome. The influence of Roman and Greek religion is all there, even in Protestant countries, only with changed names — old gods rechristened in a new fashion. They change their names; the goddesses become Marys and the gods become saints, and the ceremonials become new; even the old title of Pontifex Maximus is there. So, sudden changes cannot be and Shankaracharya knew it. So did Râmânuja. The only way left to them was slowly to bring up to the highest ideal the existing religion. If they had sought to apply the other method, they would have been hypocrites, for the very fundamental doctrine of their religion is evolution, the soul going towards the highest goal, through all these various stages and phases, which are, therefore necessary and helpful. And who dares condemn them?

It has become a trite saying that idolatry is wrong, and every man swallows it at the present time without questioning. I once thought so, and to pay the penalty of that I had to learn my lesson sitting at the feet of a man who realised everything through idols; I allude to Ramakrishna Paramahamsa. If such Ramakrishna Paramahamsas are produced by idol-worship, what will you have — the reformer's creed or any number of idols? I want an answer. Take a thousand idols more if you can produce Ramakrishna Paramahamsas through idol worship, and may God speed you! Produce such noble natures by any means you can. Yet idolatry is condemned! Why? Nobody knows. Because some hundreds of years ago some man of Jewish blood happened to condemn it? That is, he happened to condemn everybody else's idols except his own. If God is represented in any beautiful form or any symbolic form, said the Jew, it is awfully bad; it is sin. But if He is represented in the form of a chest, with two angels sitting on each side, and a cloud hanging over it, it is the holy of holies. If God comes in the form of a dove, it is holy. But if He comes in the form of a cow, it is heathen superstition; condemn it! That is how the world goes. That is why the poet says, "What fools we mortals be!" How difficult it is to look through each other's eyes, and that is the bane of humanity. That is the basis of hatred and jealousy, of quarrel and of fight. Boys, moustached babies, who never went out of Madras, standing up and wanting to dictate laws to three hundred millions of people with thousands of traditions at their back! Are you not ashamed? Stand back from such blasphemy and learn first your lessons! Irreverent boys, simply because you can scrawl a few lines upon paper and get some fool to publish them for you, you think you are the educators of the world, you think you are the public opinion of India! Is it so? This I have to tell to the social reformers of Madras that I have the greatest respect and love for them. I love them for their great hearts and their love for their country, for the poor, for the oppressed. But what I would tell them with a brother's love is that their method is not right; It has been tried a hundred years and failed. Let us try some new method.

Did India ever stand in want of reformers? Do you read the history of India? Who was Ramanuja? Who was Shankara? Who was Nânak? Who was Chaitanya? Who was Kabir? Who was Dâdu? Who were all these great preachers, one following the other, a galaxy of stars of the first magnitude? Did not Ramanuja feel for the lower classes? Did he not try all his life to admit even the Pariah to his community? Did he not try to admit even Mohammedans to his own fold? Did not Nanak confer with Hindus and Mohammedans, and try to bring about a new state of things? They all tried, and their work is still going on. The difference is this. They had not the fanfaronade of the reformers of today; they had no curses on their lips as modern reformers have; their lips pronounced only blessings. They never condemned. They said to the people that the race must always grow. They looked back and they said, "O Hindus, what you have done is good, but, my brothers, let us do better." They did not say, "You have been wicked, now let us be good." They said, "You have been good, but let us now be better." That makes a whole world of difference. We must grow according to our nature. Vain is it to attempt the lines of action that foreign societies have engrafted upon us; it is impossible. Glory unto God, that it is impossible, that we cannot be twisted and tortured into the shape oil other nations. I do not condemn the institutions of other races; they are good for them, but not for us. What is meat for them may be poison for us. This is the first lesson to learn. With other sciences, other institutions, and other traditions behind them, they have got their present system. We, with our traditions, with thousands of years of Karma behind us, naturally can only follow our own bent, run in our own grooves; and that we shall have to do.

What is my plan then? My plan is to follow the ideas of the great ancient Masters. I have studied their work, and it has been given unto me to discover the line of action they took. They were the great originators of society. They were the great givers of strength, and of purity, and of life. They did most marvellous work. We have to do most marvellous work also. Circumstances have become a little different, and in consequence the lines of action have to be changed a little, and that is all. I see that each nation, like each individual, has one theme in this life, which is its centre, the principal note round which every other note comes to form the harmony. In one nation political power is its vitality, as in England, artistic life in another, and so on. In India, religious life forms the centre, the keynote of the whole music of national life; and if any nation attempts to throw off its national vitality — the direction which has become its own through the transmission of centuries — that nation dies if it succeeds in the attempt. And, therefore, if you succeed in the attempt to throw off your religion and take up either politics, or society, or any other things as your centre, as the vitality of your national life, the result will be that you will become extinct. To prevent this you must make all and everything work through that vitality of your religion. Let all your nerves vibrate through the backbone of your religion. I have seen that I cannot preach even religion to Americans without showing them its practical effect on social life. I could not preach religion in England without showing the wonderful political changes the Vedanta would bring. So, in India, social reform has to be preached by showing how much more spiritual a life the new system will bring; and politics has to be preached by showing how much it will improve the one thing that the nation wants — its spirituality. Every man has to make his own choice; so has every nation. We made our choice ages ago, and we must abide by it. And, after all, it is not such a bad choice. Is it such a bad choice in this world to think not of matter but of spirit, not of man but of God? That intense faith in another world, that intense hatred for this world, that intense power of renunciation, that intense faith in God, that intense faith in the immortal soul, is in you. I challenge anyone to give it up. You cannot. You may try to impose upon me by becoming materialists, by talking materialism for a few months, but I know what you are; if I take you by the hand, back you come as good theists as ever were born. How can you change your nature?

So every improvement in India requires first of all an upheaval in religion. Before flooding India with socialistic or political ideas, first deluge the land with spiritual ideas. The first work that demands our attention is that the most wonderful truths confined in our Upanishads, in our scriptures, in our Purânas must be brought out from the books, brought out from the monasteries, brought out from the forests, brought out from the possession of selected bodies of people, and scattered broadcast all over the land, so that these truths may run like fire all over the country from north to south and east to west, from the Himalayas to Comorin, from Sindh to the Brahmaputra. Everyone must know of them, because it is said, "This has first to be heard, then thought upon, and then meditated upon." Let the people hear first, and whoever helps in making the people hear about the great truths in their own scriptures cannot make for himself a better Karma today. Says our Vyasa, "In the Kali Yuga there is one Karma left. Sacrifices and tremendous Tapasyâs are of no avail now. Of Karma one remains, and that is the Karma of giving." And of these gifts, the gift of spirituality and spiritual knowledge is the highest; the next gift is the gift of secular knowledge; the next is the gift of life; and the fourth is the gift of food. Look at this wonderfully charitable race; look at the amount of gifts that are made in this poor, poor country; look at the hospitality where a man can travel from the north to the south, having the best in the land, being treated always by everyone as if he were a friend, and where no beggar starves so long as there is a piece of bread anywhere!

In this land of charity, let us take up the energy of the first charity, the diffusion of spiritual knowledge. And that diffusion should not be confined within the bounds of India; it must go out all over the world. This has been the custom. Those that tell you that Indian thought never went outside of India, those that tell you that I am the first Sannyasin who went to foreign lands to preach, do not know the history of their own race. Again and again this phenomenon has happened. Whenever the world has required it, this perennial flood of spirituality has overflowed and deluged the world. Gifts of political knowledge can be made with the blast of trumpets and the march of cohorts. Gifts of secular knowledge and social knowledge can be made with fire and sword. But spiritual knowledge can only be given in silence like the dew that falls unseen and unheard, yet bringing into bloom masses of roses. This has been the gift of India to the world again and again. Whenever there has been a great conquering race, bringing the nations of the world together, making roads and transit possible, immediately India arose and gave her quota of spiritual power to the sum total of the progress of the world. This happened ages before Buddha was born, and remnants of it are still left in China, in Asia Minor, and in the heart of the Malayan Archipelago. This was the case when the great Greek conqueror united the four corners of the then known world; then rushed out Indian spirituality, and the boasted civilisation of the West is but the remnant of that deluge. Now the same opportunity has again come; the power of England has linked the nations of the world together as was never done before. English roads and channels of communication rush from one end of the world to the other. Owing to English genius, the world today has been linked in such a fashion as has never before been done. Today trade centres have been formed such as have never been before in the history of mankind. And immediately, consciously or unconsciously, India rises up and pours forth her gifts of spirituality; and they will rush through these roads till they have reached the very ends of the world. That I went to America was not my doing or your doing; but the God of India who is guiding her destiny sent me, and will send hundreds of such to all the nations of the world. No power on earth can resist it. This also has to be done. You must go out to preach your religion, preach it to every nation under the sun, preach it to every people. This is the first thing to do. And after preaching spiritual knowledge, along with it will come that secular knowledge and every other knowledge that you want; but if you attempt to get the secular knowledge without religion, I tell you plainly, vain is your attempt in India, it will never have a hold on the people. Even the great Buddhistic movement was a failure, partially on account of that.

Therefore, my friends, my plan is to start institutions in India, to train our young men as preachers of the truths of our scriptures in India and outside India. Men, men, these are wanted: everything else will be ready, but strong, vigorous, believing young men, sincere to the backbone, are wanted. A hundred such and the world becomes revolutionized. The will is stronger than anything else. Everything must go down before the will, for that comes from God and God Himself; a pure and a strong will is omnipotent. Do you not believe in it? Preach, preach unto the world the great truths of your religion; the world waits for them. For centuries people have been taught theories of degradation. They have been told that they are nothing. The masses have been told all over the world that they are not human beings. They have been so frightened for centuries, till they have nearly become animals. Never were they allowed to hear of the Atman. Let them hear of the Atman — that even the lowest of the low have the Atman within, which never dies and never is born — of Him whom the sword cannot pierce, nor the fire burn, nor the air dry — immortal, without beginning or end, the all-pure, omnipotent, and omnipresent Atman! Let them have faith in themselves, for what makes the difference between the Englishman and you? Let them talk their religion and duty and so forth. I have found the difference. The difference is here, that the Englishman believes in himself and you do not. He believes in his being an Englishman, and he can do anything. That brings out the God within him, and he can do anything he likes. You have been told and taught that you can do nothing, and nonentities you are becoming every day. What we want is strength, so believe in yourselves. We have become weak, and that is why occultism and mysticism come to us — these creepy things; there may be great truths in them, but they have nearly destroyed us. Make your nerves strong. What we want is muscles of iron and nerves of steel. We have wept long enough. No more weeping, but stand on your feet and be men. It is a man-making religion that we want. It is man-making theories that we want. It is man-making education all round that we want. And here is the test of truth — anything that makes you weak physically, intellectually, and spiritually, reject as poison; there is no life in it, it cannot be true. Truth is strengthening. Truth is purity, truth is all-knowledge; truth must be strengthening, must be enlightening, must be invigorating. These mysticisms, in spite of some grains of truth in them, are generally weakening. Believe me, I have a lifelong experience of it, and the one conclusion that I draw is that it is weakening. I have travelled all over India, searched almost every cave here, and lived in the Himalayas. I know people who lived there all their lives. I love my nation, I cannot see you degraded, weakened any more than you are now. Therefore I am bound for your sake and for truth's sake to cry, "Hold!" and to raise my voice against this degradation of my race. Give up these weakening mysticisms and be strong. Go back to your Upanishads — the shining, the strengthening, the bright philosophy — and part from all these mysterious things, all these weakening things. Take up this philosophy; the greatest truths are the simplest things in the world, simple as your own existence. The truths of the Upanishads are before you. Take them up, live up to them, and the salvation of India will be at hand.

One word more and I have finished. They talk of patriotism. I believe in patriotism, and I also have my own ideal of patriotism. Three things are necessary for great achievements. First, feel from the heart. What is in the intellect or reason? It goes a few steps and there it stops. But through the heart comes inspiration. Love opens the most impossible gates; love is the gate to all the secrets of the universe. Feel, therefore, my would-be reformers, my would-be patriots! Do you feel? Do you feel that millions and millions of the descendants of gods and of sages have become next-door neighbours to brutes? Do you feel that millions are starving today, and millions have been starving for ages? Do you feel that ignorance has come over the land as a dark cloud? Does it make you restless? Does it make you sleepless? Has it gone into your blood, coursing through your veins, becoming consonant with your heartbeats? Has it made you almost mad? Are you seized with that one idea of the misery of ruin, and have you forgotten all about your name, your fame, your wives, your children, your property, even your own bodies? Have you done that? That is the first step to become a patriot, the very first step. I did not go to America, as most of you know, for the Parliament of Religions, but this demon of a feeling was in me and within my soul. I travelled twelve years all over India, finding no way to work for my countrymen, and that is why I went to America. Most of you know that, who knew me then. Who cared about this Parliament of Religions? Here was my own flesh and blood sinking every day, and who cared for them? This was my first step.

You may feel, then; but instead of spending your energies in frothy talk, have you found any way out, any practical solution, some help instead of condemnation, some sweet words to soothe their miseries, to bring them out of this living death?

Yet that is not all. Have you got the will to surmount mountain-high obstructions? If the whole world stands against you sword in hand, would you still dare to do what you think is right? If your wives and children are against you, if all your money goes, your name dies, your wealth vanishes, would you still stick to it? Would you still pursue it and go on steadily towards your own goal? As the great King Bhartrihari says, "Let the sages blame or let them praise; let the goddess of fortune come or let her go wherever she likes; let death come today, or let it come in hundreds of years; he indeed is the steady man who does not move one inch from the way of truth." Have you got that steadfastness? If you have these three things, each one of you will work miracles. You need not write in the newspapers, you need not go about lecturing; your very face will shine. If you live in a cave, your thoughts will permeate even through the rock walls, will go vibrating all over the world for hundreds of years, maybe, until they will fasten on to some brain and work out there. Such is the power of thought, of sincerity, and of purity of purpose.

I am afraid I am delaying you, but one word more. This national ship, my countrymen, my friends, my children — this national ship has been ferrying millions and millions of souls across the waters of life. For scores of shining centuries it has been plying across this water, and through its agency, millions of souls have been taken to the other shore, to blessedness. But today, perhaps through your own fault, this boat has become a little damaged, has sprung a leak; and would you therefore curse it? Is it fit that you stand up and pronounce malediction upon it, one that has done more work than any other thing in the world? If there are holes in this national ship, this society of ours, we are its children. Let us go and stop the holes. Let us gladly do it with our hearts' blood; and if we cannot, then let us die. We will make a plug of our brains and put them into the ship, but condemn it never. Say not one harsh word against this society. I love it for its past greatness. I love you all because you are the children of gods, and because you are the children of the glorious forefathers. How then can I curse you! Never. All blessings be upon you! I have come to you, my children, to tell you all my plans. If you hear them I am ready to work with you. But if you will not listen to them, and even kick me out of India, I will come back and tell you that we are all sinking! I am come now to sit in your midst, and if we are to sink, let us all sink together, but never let curses rise to our lips.



Monday, June 13, 2011

Gandhi and Satyagraha

In the age of "satyagrahas" .It is time that we read what the Mahatma had to say about it !Young India, 11-8-1920

VOL 21: 1 JULY, 1920 - 21 NOVEMBER, 1920

The Doctrine of the Sword: MK Gandhi

In this age of the rule of brute force, it is almost impossible for anyone to believe that anyone else could possibly reject the law of the final supremacy of brute force. And so I receive anonymous letters advising me that I must not interfere with the progress of non-co-operation even though popular violence may break out. Others come to me and assuming that secretly I must be plotting violence, inquire when the happy moment for declaring open violence will arrive. They assure me that the English will never yield to anything but violence secret or open. Yet others, I am informed, believe that I am the most rascally person living in India because I never give out my real intention and that they have not a shadow of a doubt that I believe in violence just as much as most people do.

Such being the hold that the doctrine of the sword has on the majority of mankind, and as success of non-co-operation depends principally on absence of violence during its pendency and as my views in this matter affect the conduct of a large number of people, I am anxious to state them as clearly as possible.

I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence I would advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done, had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908, whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defended me, I told him that it was his duty to defend me even by using violence. Hence it was that I took part in the Boer War, the so-called Zulu rebellion and the late War. Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonour. But I believe that non-violence is infinitely superior to violence, forgiveness is more manly than punishment. Forgiveness adorns a soldier. But abstinence is forgiveness only when proceed from a helpless creature.

A mouse hardly forgives a cat when it allows itself to be torn to pieces by her. I, therefore, appreciate the sentiment of those who cry out for the condign punishment of General Dyer and his like. They would tear him to pieces if they could. But I do not believe India to be helpless. I do not believe myself to be a helpless creature. Only I want to use India's and my strength for a better purpose.

Let me not be misunderstood. Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will. An average Zulu is any way more than a match for an average Englishman in bodily capacity. But he flees from an English boy, because he fears the boys revolver or those who will use it for him. He fears death and is nerveless in spite of his burly figure. We in India may in a moment realize that one hundred thousand Englishmen need not frighten three hundred million human beings. A definite forgiveness would therefore mean a definite recognition of our strength. With enlightened forgiveness must come a mighty wave of strength in us, which would make it impossible for a Dyer and a Frank Johnson to heap affront upon Indias devoted head. It matters little to me that for the moment I do not drive my point home. We feel too downtrodden not to be angry and revengeful. But I must not refrain from saying that India can gain more by waiving the right of punishment. We have better work to do, a better mission to deliver to the world.

I am not a visionary. I claim to be a practical idealist. The religion of non-violence is not meant merely for the rishis and saints. It is meant for the common people as well. Non-violence is the law of our species as violence is the law of the brute. The spirit lies dormant in the brute and he knows no law but that of physical might. The dignity of man requires obedience to a higher law to the strength of the spirit.

I have therefore ventured to place before India the ancient law of self-sacrifice. For satyagraha and its off-shoots, non-co-operation and civil resistance, are nothing but new names for the law of suffering. The rishis, who discovered the law of non-violence in the midst of violence, were greater geniuses than Newton. They were themselves greater warriors than Wellington. Having themselves known the use of arms, they realized their uselessness and taught a weary world that its salvation lay not through violence but through non-violence.

Non-violence in its dynamic condition means conscious suffering. It does not mean meek submission to the will of the evildoer, but it means the putting of ones soul against the will of the tyrant. Working under this law of our being, it is possible for a single individual to defy the whole might of an unjust empire to save his honour, his religion, his soul and lay the foundation for that empires fall or its regeneration.

And so I am not pleading for India to practise non-violence because it is weak. I want her to practise non-violence being conscious of her strength and power. No training in arms is required for realization of her strength. We seem to need it because we seem to think that we are but a lump of flesh. I want India to recognize that she has a soul that cannot perish and that can rise triumphant above every physical weak-ness and defy the physical combination of whole world. What is the meaning of Rama, a mere human being, with his host of monkeys, pitting himself against the insolent strength of ten-headed Ravana surrounded in supposed safety by the raging waters on all sides of Lanka? Does it not mean the conquest of physical might by spiritual strength? However, being a practical man, I do not wait till India recognizes the practicability of the spiritual life in the political world. India considers herself to be powerless and paralysed before the machineguns, the tanks and the aeroplanes of the English. And she takes up non-co-operation out of her weakness. It must still serve the same purpose, namely, bring her delivery from the crushing weight of British injustice if a sufficient number of people practise it.

I isolate this non-co-operation from Sinn Feinism, for, it is so conceived as to be incapable of being offered side by side with violence. But I invite even the school of violence to give this peaceful non-co-operation a trial. It will not fail through its inherent weakness. It may fail because of poverty of response. Then will be the time for real danger. The high-souled men, who are unable to suffer national humiliation any longer, will want to vent their wrath. They will take to violence. So far as I know, they must perish without delivering themselves or their country from the wrong. If India takes up the doctrine of the sword, she may gain momentary victory. Then India will cease to be pride of my heart. I am wedded to India because I owe my all to her. I believe absolutely that she has a mission for the world. She is not to copy Europe blindly. India's acceptance of the doctrine of the sword will be the hour of my trial. I hope I shall not be found wanting. My religion has no geographical Limits. If I have a living faith in it, it will transcend my love for India herself. My life is dedicated to service of India through the religion of non-violence which I believe to be the root of Hinduism. Meanwhile I urge those who distrust me, not to disturb the even working of the struggle that has just commenced, by inciting to violence in the belief that I want violence. I detest secrecy as a sin. Let them give non-violent non-co-operation a trial and they will find that I had no mental reservation whatsoever.




Friday, November 12, 2010

Bashing the ASI Report in the Ram Janmasthan case : Truth and Facts .

Now that the ASI Report has been taken to be the crucial evidence clinching the Ram Janmasthan matter , the very nature of the Report has been attempted to be questioned by some of the eminent academics , media persons and “constitutional lawyers”.

Two broad allegations which are thrown at the report are that the ASI was not authorised to submit the report and that the ASI is biased . Needless to say again these statements have been made , by people who do not have any idea about a civil suit used as they are to “ Commissions of Enquiry” and “People’s Tribunals” which manufacture conclusions according to political convenience .

To take the first argument as to how the ASI came into the picture , it is relevant to read a few provisions of the Civil Procedure Code , namely Order XVI Rule 14 which allows the Court to summon witnesses on it’s own accord , even those who are not parties to the suit and have not been called as witnesses , or may be called to produce a document in his possession . The second is Order XVIII Rule 18 , in which the Court , which gives the power to the Court to inspect any property or thing concerning which any questions may arise ( provided that the memorandum of inspection , i.e. ASI Report , forms a part of the suit ), and , third Order XXVI Rule 10 A which allows the Court to appoint a person whom it deems fit to enquire into questions and report on that to the Court , on questions arising out of scientific investigations , which cannot be conducted before the Court.

Keeping this in mind it is important to keep the following sequence of events which lead to the acceptance of the ASI Report and therefore the second question which we had referred to above .

The Court on 1.08.2002 , the Court specially referring to the famous Issue 14 of Suit No.5 and the related Issue 1(b) of Suit No.4 and keeping in mind the Supreme Court reference , about the question as to “whether there was a Hindu temple or any Hindu religious structure existed or the alleged Babri masjid was constructed after demolishing temple at the site in dispute”, and disconcerted by the findings in the book of the “famous” leftist historian / archeologist “ Dhaneshwar Mandal” in his book “ Ayodhya- Archeology after demolition” (in which Mandal stated there is enough archeological evidence existing to come to a definitive conclusion regarding the disputed site ) asked the various parties as to their views about having the ASI excavate the site and before that use the technology of Ground Penetrating Radar ( GPR) to come to a preliminary finding.

As Justice Sudheer Agarwal records :

“ 213. Almost all the parties, namely plaintiffs, defendants no. 2,

3, 4, 20 and 22 (Suit-4) and State Government filed their objections in one or the other manner. However, except defendant no. 2, others did not raise any specific objection regarding survey of the disputed site by GPR. Sri Jilani, learned counsel for plaintiffs in Suit-4 in fact made a statement before the Court that he has no objection on G.P.R. survey of the disputed site.”.

That is in other words the only people who wanted the excavation and who asked for it was the Sunni Waqf Board and Sri Jilani was the only lawyer who stated before the Court that he had no objections to the survey.

All the various objections to the GPR ( Ground Penetrating Radar) Survey , were considered by the Court , which disposed them of by an order dated 23.10.2002 , which reiterated the law on the point and gave out reasons as to why the Court wanted such excavation . The Court then proceeded to direct Tojo- Vikas International Pvt. Ltd. to make the GPR Survey .

After the GPR report was submitted the Court sought for objections from parties , which were duly filed . The Court thereafter disposed of the objections by an order dated 5.3.2003 directing ASI to go ahead with the excavation of the disputed site with the following observations :

“Considering the entire facts and circumstances, the Archaeological Survey of India is directed to get the disputed site excavated as under:-

(1) The area shown in the report of the Commissioner submitted in Suit No. 2 of 1950 (O.O.S. No. 1 of 1989) covering an area of approximately 100x100 shown in the map plan no. 1 referred to by letters A, B, C, D, E, F and thereafter northern portion up to the end of the raised platform and further to the west, south and east to the said site to the extent of 50 feet.

(2) If it is necessary to excavate towards north or any area more than 50 feet to the disputed area, it can do so to find out the true position as regards to any foundation.

(3) It is made clear that the Archaeologists (Excavators) shall not disturb any area where the idol of Shri Ram Lala is existing and approximately 10 feet around it and they shall not affect the worship of Shri Ram Lala and thus, status quo as regards His Puja and worshippers' right of Darshan shall be maintained.”

(4) The excavation shall be done by Excavation Branch concerned specialized in excavation work within a period of one month from today. If they are engaged in other work it shall be suspended till the excavation in question is complete. If any additional staff is required the Archaeological Survey of India and Central Government shall provide it.

(5) Tojo-Vikas International (Pvt.) Limited which has surveyed the site in question by GPR etc. shall assist the excavators by providing technical assistance at the time of excavation.

(6) The work will commence within one week from today. The report will be submitted within one week from the date of completion of the excavation.

(7) The Archaeological Survey of India shall intimate the date of the commencement of the work to the Officer on Special Dutuy, Ram Janma Bhumi-Babri Masjid. On receiving such information he shall intimate the date to the parties who can watch the excavation work.

(8) Learned counsel for the parties can also appoint nominee including Archaeologist to watch the excavation work. It is made clear that only one nominee of each contesting party at one time shall be entitled to remain present.

…………………..”

The Director General , ASI constituted a team of 14 members lead by B.R. Mani , C.B. Mishra and A.A. Hashmi , which were to be helped by another 80 labourers .

The Court thereafter passed further directions by an order dated 11.03.2003 to put in more safeguards so that the interests of the parties could be protected :

“1. The general survey of the site and layout of the trenches if already done shall be done again in presence of the contesting parties or their counsel or nominees.

2. It should commence from 12.03.2003 at 10.00 a.m.

3. The excavation work should be done from 10.00 a.m.

4. List containing names and addresses of all persons including labourers engaged in excavation process be submitted to the Hon’ble Court for record.

5. Names of the equipments and tools likely to be used in excavation work may also be submitted.

6. Videography if being done may be kept in tact and under sealed cover.

7. Materials likely to be recovered may also be kept in sealed cover/bundles and may be preserved in some near by located building under lock and seal.

8. The Authorised person/Director A.S.I./Team Leader A.S.I. Excavation Team, Ayodhya should submit periodical progress report of the work to the Hon’ble Court and they should not make any briefing/disclosure to the media.

9. Transparency should be maintained.”

The said directions were complied with by the ASI and reports from time to time were submitted by the ASI to the Court.

The Sunni Waqf Board thereafter made an application for the recall of the order dated 5.3.2003, stating that GPR Report has not been approved and no order was passed on the admissibility of the said report, and therefore direction for excavation by ASI was not justified and must be reviewed. This application was rejected by the Court by an order dated 6.3.2002 holding that all the objections have already been considered and decided and no case for review is made out. The Sunni Waqf Board thereafter also made an application making allegations against the excavation and demanding the following amongst others :

“ ……6. That the depth below present surface, upto which digging has to be done, may be specified by the court and the same may be at the most 5-6 feet (1.5 or 2 meter) as the Issue regarding which the order of excavation has been passed, relates to the alleged demolition of temple (though denied) said to have been made in 1528 A.D. and as such the present excavation is not all concerned with anything of any period earlier than 16th century.

7. That plaintiff of O.O.S. No. 4 of 89 having filed the suit as the representatives of the Muslim community and the suit being contested also as a representative suit and the nature of the dispute also being very sensitive, it was not only desirable but rather necessary that the persons engaged by the A.S.I. in the entire process of excavation, should belong to both the communities in equal proportion, so that there may not remain any feeling among any community that any favour was being shown to any oneside or that more importance was being given by the A.S.I .to the members of one community as against the other. Similarly the appointment of only one Muslim in a team comprising of 14 persons can also not be said to be an impartial constitution of the excavation team. So also the engagement of all labourers of one community cannot be treated to be an impartial and justified action and inclusion of 3 Muslims only in a team of more than 50 labourers on 17/2/03, even after written demand made by the plaintiffs' counsels, shows their reluctance to act in an independent and impartial manner.

It is therefore, not only desirable, but necessary, in order to create confidence about the impartiality of the excavation work, that the A.S.I. be directed to include at least half of the members of Excavation Team and labourers from among the Muslims and 5 eminent Archaeologists (Excavators) and an observer be also appointed by this Hon'ble court with the consent of the parties, as per order dated 1-8-2002.”

It is apparent that by this time it was apparent that there had appeared an old existing structure resembling a temple at the place of the disputed structure , therefore the attempt to restrict the ASI to only excavate upto the 16th Century .

The Court after hearing the parties on both sides then passed the following order on 26.3.2003, parts of which are extracted as follows :

“The applicant has sought further directions in the matter. We deal with each of the points raised and suggestions made by the applicant and parties as under :-

……..5. The applicant has suggested that there should be adequate representation of the Muslim community in ASI team as also in engagement of the labours for excavation work. Archaeology is a Science and every Archaeologist has to perform excavation and related work in a scientific manner on the principles laid down for excavation. When he acts as Archaeologist to prefix the word denoting his religion is not a correct description of such Scientist, e.g. a doctor may have any religious faith but he cannot be described by prefixing the word 'Muslim', 'Hindu', 'Christian' etc. It is his performance of work is relevant. It will amount to tarnishing of a Scientist, Archaeologist or any person engaged in excavation. Even the plaintiffs of O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989 (Sunni Central Board of Waqfs, U.P. And others Vs. Gopal Singh Visharad (now dead) and others had produced Suraj Bhan and B. Mandal who are non Muslims. They have also nominated some non-Muslim Archaeologists as their observers at the time ofexcavation.It is, however, to maintain faith of both thecommunities. In the facts and circumstances, it is desirable that adequate representation of both the communities may be maintained in respect of the functioning of the ASI team and engagement of the labours. We have been informed that Authorised Person seeks assistance of P.W.D. to engage the labours. He may take the help of P.W.D. or any agency, which adequately represents the labourers of Muslim community. Sri Jilani, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that if an Authorised Person is unable to get Muslim labourers, he can help him. We direct the Authorised Person to see that the labourers belonging to Muslim community may be engaged by any agency and if any agency is unable to find out such labourers, he can seek assistance of the counsel for the applicant. As regards the ASI team, Sri A.A. Hashmi, Assistant Archaeologist has been included in the list. In our view out of 8 Archaeologists engaged in the team, at least two more Archaeologists can be included for which ASI shall take necessary steps.The ASI team is further directed to submit the list of the names of the persons in the excavation trenches of various religious in India.”

This was complied with . There were continous back and forth objections about the excavation which have been dealt with extensively by Justice Agarwal in his judgment :

Between 14th April, 2003 to 26th July, 2003, thirty four such objections were filed out of which nineteen were filed through Sri Zaffaryab Jilani, Advocate; two through Mohd. Saleem, Advocate; two by Sri Mohd. Hashim (one of the plaintiff of Suit-4); four through Sri A.A. Siddiqui, Advocate; four through Sri Mustaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate; two by Sri R.L.Verma, Advocate and one by Haji Mehboob (one of the plaintiff of Suit-4). In nutshell thirty two objections were filed on behalf of muslim parties and two on behalf of Nirmohi Akhara.”

An interim report was prepared by the ASI which was also objected to by the Sunni Waqf Board which was disposed of by Court's order dated 3.7.2003 stating that the ASI need not submit any further project report but may submit final report. Subsequently ASI was permitted to submit its final report on or before 27.8.2003 by order dated 3.7.2003. The ASI was given a last opportunity to visit the site till 22nd August , 2003 under strict Court sscrutiny.

The ASI submitted it’s final report on 22.8.2003 along with detailed records to the Court .The report came up before the Court on 25.8.2003. Copies were supplied to all the partes and objections were invited from the parties . The ASI report was objected mainly by Sunni Waqf Board , Mohd. Hashim and other parties who raised mainly the following objections :

“1. That the report is one sided and is greatly influenced by certain preconceived theory of nations;……………

8. that the report is full of inconsistencies and discrepancies and the conclusions therein appear to have been tailored to support a particular theory;

9. that theory of existence of massive structure on wall- 16 and the 50 pillars, as shown in figure 23-B page 42-C of Volume I, is a concoction and unacceptable for the reasons inter alia that there were no pillar bases and the same had not alignment with each other nor were at the same level nor had capacity to support load bearing pillars;

10. that theory of massive structure is totally ill-founded because ASI report is silent on the point as to where were the remaining three walls of that structure, if wall 16 was one of the walls;

11. that so called “circular shrine” (which according to ASI, had a waterchute in the north and could be associated with Lord Shiva) could also be a structure relating to Budhism or Jainism, as considering the thin passage and little diameter, it was not possible for even a single person to enter and offer “Abhishekha”;

12. that ASI has, without any firm basis, characterized mutilated stone sculpture (plates 235 of Vol II of the report) as ‘divine couple’ and appears to have invented it at some later stage, as reference to it does not find incorresponding Site note-book or Day to Day Register; 13. that pillar door jam, octagonal shaft of pillars, amalka, divine couple stone with Srivastsa motif, lotus medallion, which ASI has taken into consideration for saying that there were remains of temple on the site in question, were of not significance as the same had been recovered from debris;

14. that alleged Srivatsa (see Plate No. 88) could equally be associated with Jainism and lotus with Buddhism and Islamic religion;

15. that terra-cotta figurines (62 human & 131 animal) discovered from different trenches, belong to ancient period and had no relevance;

16. that glazed- wares and glazed- tiles so recovered during the course of excavation spoke against the theory of existence of temple as all these were found below floor No. 4 relating to Medieval Sultanat period;

17. that in view of what has been written by S.K. Meermira in his book “Indian Pottery” glazed tiles were proof of Muslim habitation;

18. that wall-16 had niches (mehrab) on the inner side which are distinctive features of Islamic building and even if it is accepted that the same existed prior to construction of Babri Masjid, the same could have been a Idgah or Kanati (roofless mosque);

19. that no idol, or statute of any Hindu deity and no object of Hindu worship was found on the site so as to entitle the ASI to say that there were remains of existence of temple of north India;

20. that how the conclusions of ASI came in the Indian Express in its issue of 13.8.2003, much before 22.8.2003, when the report was filed in Court and that indicates that ASI tailored the report on the lines given in S.P. Gupta’s book titled “Auodhya Puratatve Evam Itihas”.

This Court after hearing the parties, vide its order dated 3.2.2005 held that the objections are basically such which can be considered and decided in the light of other evidence, which may come up before the Court in other words , they were in the nature of interpretation by expert witnesses , which the Court would have to consider subsequently. The Court was also of the view that the objections against the report would have to be considered before ASI report is acted upon but that situation will arise only when the Court would decide the matter finally. Therefore, the Court held that the ASI report shall be subject to the objections and evidences of the parties in the suit and all this shall be dealt with when the matter is finally decided.

Subsequently various expert witnesses were examined on the subject of the report by various parties . None of the famous historians so intent on holding forth and interpreting the evidence today and demanding access to the same , felt it important to depose before the Court as to their interpretations .

Justice Agarwal narrates the parade of witnesses :

“3797. 28 witnesses, i.e., PW 1 to 28 on behalf of plaintiffs (Suit-4) were examined between 24.07.1996 to 14.05.2005. The rest of four witnesses, i.e., PW 29 to 32 were examined between 28.09.2005 to 27.03.2006, i.e., against ASI report. Two witnesses were examined again i.e. PW 16 from 20.03.2006 to 28.07.2006 and PW 24 from 05.12.2005 to 04.01.2006 i.e. after ASI report. Similarly, on behalf of plaintiffs (Suit-5) 16 witnesses, i.e., OPW 1 to 16 were examined between 22.11.1999 to 21.07.2003. After the submission of ASI report three witnesses, i.e., OPW 17 to 19 were examined between 17.08.2006 to 05.12.2006. Defendant no. 1 (Suit-4) got all his three witnesses, i.e., DW 1/1 to 1/3 examined from 22.07.2003 to 21.08.2003 and did not produce any oral evidence after ASI report. Plaintiff (Suit-3) got his 20 witnesses, i.e., DW 3/1 to 3/20 examined from 29.08.2003 to 30.11.2004 and he also did not produce any witness either in support or against ASI report. Defendant no. 2/1 (Suit-4) got three witnesses, i.e., DW 2/1-1 to DW 2/1-3 examined from 01.12.2004 to 09.03.2005 and none was in respect to ASI report. DW 13/1 (Suit-4) got examined three witnesses, i.e., DW 13/1-1 to 13/1-3 from 10.03.2005 to 05.05.2005. Out of these three witnesses the statement of Mahant Awadh Bihari Das Pathak, DW 13/1-2 remained incomplete and, therefore, has to be excluded and cannot be read in evidence. Similarly, defendant no. 17 (Suit-4) examined sole witness DW 17/1 from 09.05.2005 to 17.05.2005; defendant no. 20 (Suit-4) got examined four witnesses, i.e., DW 20/1 to 20/4 from 25.05.2005 to 23.11.2005. Its fifth witness DW 20/5, Jayanti Prasad Srivastava deposed statement to support ASI report and was examined from 15.01.2007 to 23.03.2007. Defendant no. 6/1 (Suit-3) produced two witnesses, i.e., DW 6/1-1 and 6/1-2 who were examined from 29.08.2005 to 29.09.2005.

3798. Thus plaintiffs (Suit-4) produced eight witnesses called 'experts' (Archaeologist) to assail ASI proceedings, observations interpretations and findings. Similarly, plaintiffs (Suit 5) produced three witnesses, and defendant no.20 produced one witness in support of ASI report.”

The Muslim parties did not so much object to procedural impropriety of the Report which is being bandied about today but more about the interpretation of the evidence which was found during excavation .

Justice Agarwal therefore succinctly states his conclusions in relation to the Report :

“ 3796. One thing however is clear. Though the report of ASI on certain aspects including technical has been criticized by the Experts of Muslim parties but in general, what emerges, some undisputed facts, i.e. admission on the part of the objectors on many aspects, which are :

(i) A lot of structural and construction acitivities existed at the disputed site going back to the level of Shunga and Kushan period.

(ii) The exact number of floors, pillar bases and walls noted by ASI though objected but the very existence of several floors, walls, and pillar bases beneath the disputed stricture is not disputed.

(iii) The structure below the disputed structure sought to be explained as Kanati mosque or Idgah. There is no suggestion that the structure below the disputed building was of non-religious nature.

(iv) Some of the constructions or artefacts are sought to relate to Jains or Buddhist but here also it is not the case that it was Islamic in nature or non religious.

(v) Though allegations of lack of independence in professional style etc. is sought to be supported from the alleged misinterpretation or wrong interpretation or omission or contradictions and discrepancies in some part of the report but no one of ASI team, individual or group has been named or shown to have worked in a manner lacking integrity, independence etc. (except where two nominees of Muslim side i.e. Dr. Jaya Menon (PW 29) and Dr. Supriya Verma (PW 32) reported creation of pillar bases in Trench G2 vide complaints dated 21.5.2003 and 7.6.2003).”

That is why Justice SU Khan too when he addresses the ASI Report terms it as inconclusive and never raises the question of the validity of the Report or it’s acceptability in Court :

“Conclusions of A.S.I. Report 2003, already quoted, are not of much help in this regard for two reasons. Firstly, the conclusion that there is ‘evidence of continuity in structural phases from the tenth Century onward upto the construction of the disputed structure’ is directly in conflict with the pleadings, gazetteers and history books. Neither it has been pleaded by any party nor mentioned in any gazetteer or most of the history books that after construction of temples by Vikramadittya in first Century B.C. (or third or fourth century A.D., according to some) and till the construction of the mosque in question around 1528 A.D. any construction activity was carried out at the site of the premises in dispute or around that. Secondly, in case some temple had been demolished for constructing the mosque then the superstructure material of the temple would not have gone inside the ground. It should have been either reused or removed.

No learned counsel appearing for any of the Hindu parties has been able to explain this position.

It has been mentioned in the A.S.I. Report 2003 that underground portion contained several such items, which are associated with the temples of north India, e.g. mutilated sculpture of divine couple, foliage patterns, amalaka, lotus motive etc. Only in case of severe earthquake or in case of flood of very high magnitude superstructure immediately goes down inside the ground otherwise remains of a ruined building go inside the ground after centuries and not immediately after falling down of the building. It is also important to note that neither there is any requirement nor practice that even in the foundations of temple, there must be such items, which may denote the nature of the superstructure.

Accordingly, it is abundantly clear that firstly no temple was demolished for constructing the mosque and secondly until the mosque was constructed during the period of Babar, the premises in dispute was neither treated nor believed to be the birth-place nothing but birth-place and the whole birth-place of Lord Ram. It is inconceivable that Babar (or Aurangzeb) should have first made or got made thorough research to ascertain the exact birth-place of Lord Ram, which was not known to anyone for centuries and then got constructed the mosque on the said site.

The only thing which can be guessed, and it will be quite an informed guess taking the place of finding in a matter, which is centuries old, is that a very large area was considered to be birth-place of Lord Ram by general Hindus in the sense that they treated that somewhere in that large area Lord Ram was born however, they were unable to identify and ascertain the exact place of birth, and that in that large area there were ruins of several temples and at a random small spot in that large area Babar got constructed the mosque in question.”

None of the orders directing either the survey or the excavation or the conditional acceptance of the Final Report of the ASI were ever appealed to any Court by any of the parties . To now come up with such ex post facto objections is clearly either mischievous or ignorant .The point is that, whether one agrees to the interpretation of the evidence excavated by the ASI or not , the ASI Report was not made in a vaccum and the Court bent over backwards to accommodate interests of all the parties specially the Sunni Waqf Board . The Court heard all the interpretations by various witnesses before it , interpreting the evidence excavated by the ASI and came to the conclusion which according to it was the closest to the truth . The Court unanimously did not find any specific problem with the process of excavation itself or the conclusion of the Report of the ASI , though there was a clear difference between the Hon’ble Judges as to the relevance of the conclusions to the legal question in the present case . The attempt to therefore now paint the ASI as the villain of the piece is plainly disingenuous , but then what else can one expect out of those are so used to twist facts and evidence conveniently in their Commissions of Enquiry and their People’s Tribunals.