വടക്കാഞ്ചേരിയിൽ എന്തോ ചീഞ്ഞു നാറുന്നു

ആ നിയമോപദേശം ശരിയല്ല 

നിയമമന്ത്രി എ കെ ബാലൻ പറഞ്ഞത്,ലൈഫ് മിഷൻ പദ്ധതിയിൽ റെഡ് ക്രെസൻറ് സഹായം സംബന്ധിച്ച നിയമോപദേശത്തിൽ തനിക്ക് ഒരു പങ്കുമില്ല,നിയമ സെക്രട്ടറിക്കാണ് ഉത്തരവാദിത്തം എന്നാണ്.അത് ശരിയുമാണ്.

പി കെ അരവിന്ദ ബാബു നിയമ സെക്രട്ടറി ആയി നിയമിക്കപ്പെട്ടത് 2019 ജൂൺ ഒന്നിനാണ്.ലൈഫ് മിഷൻ പദ്ധതിക്ക് റെഡ് ക്രെസൻറ് സഹായത്തിന് വിദേശ അനുമതി സംബന്ധിച്ച നിയമോപദേശം വാങ്ങാൻ മുഖ്യമന്ത്രിയുടെ ഓഫിസിൽ നിന്ന് എം ശിവശങ്കർ തദ്ദേശ ഭരണ അഡീഷണൽ ചീഫ് സെക്രട്ടറി ടി കെ ജോസിന് എഴുതുന്നത് ജൂലൈ പത്തിന്.അടുത്ത ദിവസം റെഡ് ക്രെസെന്റുമായി കരാർ ഒപ്പിടുമ്പോൾ കേന്ദ്ര അനുമതി വേണ്ടെന്ന നിയമോപദേശം കിട്ടിയിരുന്നു.

ഈ നിയമോപദേശം ശരിയായിരുന്നോ ?

കേരളം പ്രളയം കണ്ട 2018 ൽ കേന്ദ്ര നയം പ്രളയം പോലുള്ള ഘട്ടങ്ങളിൽ വിദേശ സഹായം സ്വീകരിക്കരുത് എന്നായിരുന്നു.അതിനാൽ കേരളത്തിന് യു എ ഇ വഴി വരേണ്ട 700 കോടി കിട്ടാതെ പോയി എന്ന് ഇടതു കേന്ദ്രങ്ങൾ സങ്കടം പറയാറുണ്ട്.ദുരിതങ്ങൾ രാജ്യം സ്വയം തരണം ചെയ്യും എന്നാണ് കേന്ദ്ര നയം.

അക്കാലത്ത് യൂറോപ്യൻ യൂണിയൻ സഹായത്തിന് കണ്ടെത്തിയ ബദൽ വഴി ആയിരുന്നു റെഡ് ക്രോസ് / റെഡ് ക്രെസൻറ്. 1,90,000 പൗണ്ട് ( രണ്ടു കോടി രൂപ )  അടിയന്തര സഹായമായി റെഡ് ക്രോസിന് അനുവദിച്ചു.കേന്ദ്ര വിദേശ കാര്യ വക്താവ് രവീഷ് കുമാർ വിദേശ സർക്കാരുകളിൽ നിന്ന് സഹായം സ്വീകരിക്കില്ലെന്ന് വ്യക്തമാക്കിയ ശേഷം ആയിരുന്നു,ഇത്.പ്രവാസികളിൽ നിന്നോ ഇന്ത്യൻ വംശജരിൽ നിന്നോ ഫൗണ്ടേഷനുകൾ പോലുള്ള രാജ്യാന്തര സംഘടനകളിൽ നിന്നോ പ്രധാന മന്ത്രിയുടെയും മുഖ്യമന്ത്രിയുടെയും ദുരിതാശ്വാസ നിധികളിലേക്ക് സംഭാവന സ്വീകരിക്കാം എന്നും വ്യക്തമാക്കിയിരുന്നു.

ഈ നിർദേശം അനുസരിച്ച് റെഡ് ക്രോസ് വഴി സഹായിക്കാം എന്ന് വന്നു.വീട്ടുപകരണങ്ങൾ അത് നഷ്ടപ്പെട്ടവർക്ക് നൽകുക,പ്രളയത്തിന് പിന്നാലെ രോഗങ്ങൾ വരുന്നതിനാൽ കൊതുകു വലകൾ നൽകുക തുടങ്ങിയവയാണ് ലക്ഷ്യമെന്ന് യൂറോപ്യൻ യൂണിയൻ പ്രസ്താവന ഇറക്കി.

റെഡ് ക്രോസ് / റെഡ് ക്രെസൻറ് സൊസൈറ്റിയുടെ ദുരിതാശ്വാസ അടിയന്തര നിധിക്കായിരുന്നു സംഭാവന.

യു എ ഇ യിൽ നിന്ന് സഹായം സ്വീകരിക്കേണ്ടതില്ല എന്ന കേന്ദ്ര നിർദേശത്തെ എതിർത്ത ധനമന്ത്രി തോമസ് ഐസക്കിന്റെ പ്രസ്താവന കേന്ദ്രം ശ്രദ്ധിച്ചു.2016 ലെ ദേശീയ ദുരിതാശ്വാസ നിയന്ത്രണ പദ്ധതിയിൽ  India “may" accept aid “if the national government of another country voluntarily offers assistance as a goodwill gesture in solidarity with the disaster victims" ( ഇന്ത്യയ്ക്ക് വേണമെങ്കിൽ മറ്റൊരു രാജ്യത്തിൻറെ സ്വയമേവയുള്ള സഹായം ദുരിത നേരത്തെ ഐക്യദാർഢ്യമെന്ന നിലയിൽ സ്വീകരിക്കാം ) എന്നുള്ളതായി ഐസക് ട്വിറ്ററിൽ കുറിച്ചു.

ഐസക്കിന് തെറ്റി എന്ന് കേന്ദ്രം വിലയിരുത്തി."വേണമെങ്കിൽ" എന്ന പ്രയോഗത്തിന് അർഥം,കേന്ദ്രം വിദേശ സഹായം സ്വീകരിക്കണം എന്നല്ല.

ഗുജറാത്തിൽ 2001 ൽ ഭൂകമ്പമുണ്ടായപ്പോൾ അവിടത്തെ സർക്കാർ സഹായം സ്വീകരിച്ചത്,ശ്രദ്ധിച്ചാണ്.മരുന്ന് സ്വീകരിച്ചതേയില്ല.

ഇത്രയും പറഞ്ഞതിൽ നിന്ന് തെളിയുന്നത്,ഇവിടത്തെ റെഡ് ക്രോസ് വഴിയാണ് യു എ ഇ സഹായിക്കേണ്ടിയിരുന്നത് എന്നാണ്;അതും മനുഷ്യന് ആവശ്യം വേണ്ട വസ്‌തുക്കൾ എന്ന നിലയിൽ.

എമിറേറ്റ്സ് റെഡ്  ക്രെസൻറ് ,ഇവിടത്തെ റെഡ് ക്രോസ് വഴിയാണ്  വരേണ്ടിയിരുന്നത്.അത് സംഭവിച്ചില്ല.

കോഴ നൽകിയതായി കരാറുകാരൻ പറഞ്ഞിട്ടുണ്ട്;അത് റെഡ് ക്രോസ് പ്രവത്തനത്തിൽ ഇല്ല.രാഷ്ട്രപതിയാണ് റെഡ് ക്രോസ് അധ്യക്ഷൻ.

അതിനാൽ,കേരളത്തിലെ 20 കോടി റെഡ് ക്രെസൻറ് പദ്ധതിയിൽ എന്തോ ചീഞ്ഞു നാറുന്നു .

ഷേക്‌സ്പിയറുടെ 'ഹാംലെറ്റ്‌' നാടകത്തിൽ,കാലം ചെയ്ത രാജാവിൻറെ പ്രേതം പ്രത്യക്ഷപ്പെട്ട ശേഷം,കൊട്ടാരം കാവൽക്കാരൻ പറയുന്നു:"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark" ( ഡെന്മാർക്കിൽ എന്തോ ചീഞ്ഞു നാറുന്നു). 

ചില പ്രത്യേക താൽപര്യങ്ങൾ മുൻ നിർത്തി മുഖ്യമന്ത്രിയുടെ ഓഫീസ് നന്നായി നടന്നു വന്ന ലൈഫ് മിഷൻ പദ്ധതി ഏറ്റെടുക്കുകയായിരുന്നു എന്ന് രേഖകൾ വ്യക്തമാക്കുന്നു.അതിനാൽ പിണറായി വിജയന് എളുപ്പം കൈകഴുകാൻ ആവില്ല.

ലൈഫ് മിഷൻ മേധാവി സ്ഥാനത്തു നിന്ന് എസ് ഹരികിഷോറിനെ മാറ്റി, ആ സ്ഥാനത്തും എം ശിവശങ്കറിനെ അവരോധിച്ച് സർക്കാർ ഉത്തരവിറക്കിയത് 2018 ജൂൺ പതിനാറിനായിരുന്നു. ജനകീയനായ ഉദ്യോഗസ്ഥൻ എന്ന പേരുള്ള ഹരികിഷോറിനെ നീക്കിയത് സംശയാസ്പദമാണ്. നിശ്ചിത സമയത്ത് പദ്ധതി തീരുന്നില്ല എന്നാണ് കാരണം പറഞ്ഞത്. അന്ന് ശിവശങ്കർ പ്രിൻസിപ്പൽ സെക്രട്ടറി ആയിട്ടില്ല. മുഖ്യമന്ത്രിയുടെ ഓഫിസർ ഓൺ സ്‌പെഷൽ ഡ്യൂട്ടി ആയിരുന്നു.

ഹരികിഷോർ ലൈഫ് മിഷൻ മേധാവിയായി സ്ഥാനമേറ്റ്‌ വെറും രണ്ടാഴ്ച കഴിയും മുൻപായിരുന്നു അദ്ദേഹത്തെ നീക്കിയത്. അതിനാൽ മതിയായ കാരണം അതിന് പിന്നിലില്ല. ഹരികിഷോറിനെ കുടുംബ ശ്രീ മേധാവിയാക്കി -പ്രധാനമന്ത്രി ആവാസ് യോജന എന്ന ഭവന പദ്ധതി അതിന് കീഴിലുണ്ട്.

2018 ഏപ്രിൽ പതിനൊന്നിന് നടന്ന ലൈഫ് മിഷൻ അവലോകന യോഗത്തിൽ മുഖ്യമന്ത്രി ലൈഫ് മിഷൻ നടത്തിപ്പിൽ അതൃപ്തി പ്രകടിപ്പിച്ചിരുന്നു. അതിൻറെ ഒന്നാം ഘട്ടത്തിൽ ഓരോ ജില്ലയിലും ഒരു പാർപ്പിട സമുച്ചയം എന്ന ലക്ഷ്യം ഒരു വർഷത്തിനകം വേണ്ട വണ്ണം പൂർത്തീകരിക്കാനായില്ല എന്നായിരുന്നു വിമർശനം. ടെൻഡർ വഴിയോ സർക്കാർ ഏജൻസികൾ വഴിയോ ഉടൻ നിർമാണം നടത്താൻ ചീഫ് സെക്രട്ടറി പോൾ ആന്റണിയോട് നിർദേശിക്കുകയും ചെയ്തു. വടകരയിലെ ഊരാളുങ്കൽ സൊസൈറ്റിയെ ഇതിനായി നിർദേശിച്ചത് വിവാദമുണ്ടാക്കി. കേന്ദ്ര വിജിലൻസ് കമ്മിഷന്റെയോ സംസ്ഥാന ധന വകുപ്പിന്റെയോ മാർഗ നിർദേശങ്ങൾ പരിഗണിച്ചില്ല.

ഇതിനെ തദ്ദേശ ഭരണ സെക്രട്ടറി ബി അശോക്‌ എതിർത്തപ്പോൾ അദ്ദേഹത്തെയും മാറ്റി. ജൂനിയർ ഐ എ എസ്‌ ഓഫീസർമാരെ വയ്ക്കുന്ന സിവിൽ സപ്ലൈസ് എം ഡി സ്ഥാനം കിട്ടിയ അശോക്‌ ഇപ്പോൾ അവധിയിലാണ്.

സ്ഥലജല വിഭ്രാന്തിയിൽ,പിണറായി

കലിഗുലയുടെ തിരിച്ചു വരവ് 

പല തവണയായി പിണറായി വിജയൻ മാധ്യമ പ്രവർത്തകരെ ആട്ടുന്നു; അവരോട് ആക്രോശിക്കുന്നു, ഇറങ്ങാൻ പറയുന്നു. കയറാൻ വേണ്ടിവന്ന ബദ്ധപ്പാട് കാരണമായിരിക്കും, തുടരെത്തുടരെ ഇത് പറഞ്ഞോണ്ടിരിക്കുന്നത്. മാധ്യമ പ്രവർത്തകർ ഒരു അധികാര സ്ഥാനത്തുo കയറാത്തതിനാൽ അവർക്ക് ഇറങ്ങേണ്ട ആവശ്യം വരുന്നില്ല. എന്നാൽ പിണറായി വിജയൻ ഇറങ്ങും. അല്ലെങ്കിൽ ജനം താഴെയിറക്കും. വെറുതെ കേരള എർദോഗൻ ചമയുകയാണ്, പിണറായി.

മാധ്യമങ്ങളുടെ വായ മൂടിക്കെട്ടുന്ന എർദോഗനെ തുർക്കിക്കാർ ഇറക്കിക്കോളും.

അധികാരത്തിലിരിക്കുന്നവന് സ്ഥല ജല വിഭ്രാന്തി പിടി പെടുക അസ്വാഭാവികമല്ല.

കലിഗുല

ആൽബേർ കാമുവിൻറെ ‘കലിഗുല’ എന്ന നാടകമാണ് ഓർത്തു പോകുന്നത്. അൾജീരിയയിൽ ജനിച്ച് ഫ്രാൻസിൽ ചിന്തകനായ കാമു, ഹിറ്റ്ലറുടെ ഭ്രാന്തിൻറെ മൂർദ്ധന്യത്തിലാണ്, ‘കലിഗുല’ എഴുതുന്നത്. 1938 ൽ എഴുത്തു തുടങ്ങി പലതവണ മിനുക്കി,1944 ലാണ് പ്രസിദ്ധീകരിച്ചത്.

റോമാ ചരിത്രത്തിലെ ഏറ്റവും ക്രൂരനായ ചക്രവർത്തിയായിരുന്നു, കലിഗുല. അയാളുടെ ക്രൂരതകൾ ഇവിടെ വിവരിക്കുന്നില്ല. അധാർമികതകളും വിസ്തരിക്കുന്നില്ല. അയാൾ വായനക്കാരുടെ മനസ്സിൽ നില്കുന്നത് സ്വന്തം കുതിരയെ ഉപദേഷ്ടാവാക്കി വച്ചു എന്നതിനാലാണ്. ഇൻസിറ്റാറ്റസ്‌ എന്നായിരുന്നു , കുതിരയുടെ പേര്.

പ്രാചീന ചരിത്രകാരൻ സ്യൂട്ടോണിയസ് ആണ് ആ കഥ ലോകത്തിനു മുന്നിൽ വച്ചത്.കുതിരയോടുള്ള സ്നേഹം മൂത്ത് കലിഗുല, അതിന് ദന്തം കൊണ്ട് തൊഴുത്തുണ്ടാക്കി. കഴുത്തിൽ ആഭരണങ്ങൾ അണിയിച്ചു.കൊട്ടാരം പണിതു. സ്വർണത്തരി കലർത്തിയ ഓട് സ് ആണ് കുതിരയ്ക്ക് കൊടുത്തിരുന്നതെന്ന് ചരിത്രകാരൻ കാഷ്യസ് ഡിയോ എഴുതി. ഇവർക്കുശേഷം വന്ന ചരിത്രകാരനാണ്, കുതിരയായിരുന്നു, ചക്രവർത്തിയുടെ ഉപദേഷ്ടാവ് എന്നെഴുതിയത്.

ഉപദേഷ്ടാക്കളുടെ ഘോഷയാത്രയാണ് പിണറായി ഭരണത്തിലുള്ളത്.

പുസ്തകങ്ങളും കാർട്ടൂണുകളും നിരോധിക്കുന്ന ഒരു ജനതയാണ്,നാം.കലിഗുല തുടങ്ങി താമസിയാതെ രണ്ടാം ലോകയുദ്ധം തുടങ്ങിയതിനാലും.ഹിറ്റ്‌ലർ ഉള്ളതിനാലും,കാമുവിന് പല തവണ നാടകം പരിഷ്‌കരിക്കേണ്ടി വന്നു.കാമുവിൻറെ അസംബന്ധ ചക്രത്തിൻറെ ഭാഗമായിരുന്നു,അത്.ഔട്ട് സൈഡർ,മിത്ത് ഓഫ് സിസിഫസ് എന്നിവയാണ്,മറ്റുള്ളവ.’ഞാൻ ചിന്തിക്കുന്നു,അതിനാൽ ഞാനുണ്ട്’ ( I think ,therefore I Am ) എന്ന ദെക്കാർത്തെയുടെ തത്വത്തെ,’ഞാൻ കലഹിക്കുന്നു , അതിനാൽ ഞാനുണ്ട്’ ( I rebel ,therefore I Am ) എന്ന് മാറ്റിയെഴുതിയ ചിന്തകനാണ്,കാമു.

സഹോദരി ദ്രൂസിലയുടെ മരണത്തിൽ ദുഖിതനായ കലിഗുലയിലാണ്,നാടകം തുടങ്ങുന്നത്.സ്വന്തം വധം കലിഗുല തന്നെ ആസൂത്രണം ചെയ്യുന്നതായിട്ടാണ്,കാമുവിൻറെ വ്യാഖ്യാനം.എ ഡി 41 ജനുവരി 24 നായിരുന്നു,ചരിത്രത്തിൽ അയാളുടെ മരണം.

ആഹ്ളാദമില്ലാതെയാണ് മനുഷ്യർ മരിക്കുന്നത് എന്ന് കണ്ടെത്തുന്ന കലിഗുല,ആഹ്ളാദ വഴികൾ തേടുന്നു.കേവല സത്യം കണ്ടെത്താൻ അയാൾക്കുള്ള ഉപകരണം സർവ പുച്ഛവും പേടിപ്പിക്കലുമാണ്. കൊലപാതകവും മൂല്യങ്ങളുടെ തച്ചു തകർക്കലും വഴി,അയാൾ കണ്ടെത്തുന്ന സ്വാതന്ത്ര്യം വിലയില്ലാത്തതായി പരിണമിക്കുന്നു.സൗഹൃദവും സ്നേഹവും അയാൾക്ക് വേണ്ട.ഐക്യവും നന്മയും വേണ്ട.ഉപജാപക സംഘത്തിൻറെ വാക്കുകൾ വിശ്വസിച്ച് അവയ്ക്ക് യുക്‌തികൾ കണ്ടെത്തി, ചുറ്റുമുള്ളവരെ അയാൾ അരിഞ്ഞു വീഴ്ത്തുന്നു. സംഹാര ത്വരയാണ് അയാളുടെ ജീവിത പ്രചോദനം.സംഹാരം,അവനെ തന്നെ സംഹരിക്കും. ഉപജാപക സംഘത്തെ ആയുധം അണിയിച്ച് അയാൾ സ്വന്തം അന്തകനാകുന്നു.

ഏതു സ്റ്റാലിനിസ്റ്റ് ഭരണാധികാരിക്കും സ്തുതിപാഠകരെ ഇഷ്ടമായിരിക്കും. അതിൽ തന്നിഷ്ടം നോക്കികളായ മാധ്യമ ഉടമകളും പ്രവർത്തകരും കാണും. എന്നാൽ.പ്രോലിറ്റേറിയൻ ഭരണാധികാരി,ബൂർഷ്വ മാധ്യമത്തിന്റെ ബൂർഷ്വ ഉടമയുമായി ചങ്ങാത്തം കൂടി എന്നതിനാൽ മാധ്യമ പ്രവർത്തകരെല്ലാം കീഴാളരായി, “ഇറങ്ങടാ ” എന്ന് പറയാം എന്ന് കരുതിയാൽ, അത് പതനമാണ്. മാർക്സിസ്റ്റിന്റെ പരമ പദം ബൂർഷ്വയാണെന്ന് പ്രത്യയ ശാസ്ത്രത്തിൽ പറയുന്നില്ല എന്ന് മാത്രമല്ല, ദാരിദ്ര്യ കാലത്ത് കാൾ മാർക്സിന് അഷ്ടിക്ക് വക നൽകിയത്, ന്യൂയോർക് ഡെയിലി ട്രിബ്യു ൺ എന്ന പത്രമായിരുന്നു. മാർക്സ് പത്ര പ്രവർത്തകനായിരുന്നു. ദരിദ്രനായി തന്നെ മാർക്സ് മരിച്ചു. അദ്ദേഹത്തിന് എഴുത്തച്ഛൻ പുരസ്‌കാരവും കേസരി -സ്വദേശാഭിമാനി പുരസ്കാരവും കിട്ടിയില്ല.

അടുത്ത തവണ ദരിദ്രരായ മാധ്യമ പ്രവർത്തകരെ ബൂർഷ്വയായ വിജയൻ ആട്ടുമ്പോൾ , ആ കൂട്ടത്തിൽ മാർക്സ് ഉണ്ടോ എന്ന് ഒരു നിമിഷം ശങ്കിക്കണം. അപ്പോൾ, വന്ന വഴിയിൽ കൂടി തിരിച്ചു നടക്കാൻ പറ്റും. നിങ്ങൾ ഓരോ തവണയും മാധ്യമങ്ങളോട് ഇറങ്ങാൻ പറയുമ്പോൾ, നിങ്ങൾ നാട്ടുകാരുടെ മനസ്സിൽ നിന്നിറങ്ങുകയാണെന്ന് ഓർമ്മ വേണം.

KERALA LINKED TO AFRICAN MINE ROBBERY

An Indian Fugitive in 2019 Mine Attack

The main accused,K T Ramees in the Kerala diplomatic gold smuggling case haslinks with mining cartels in Africa,the NIA has found.He visited Tanzania last year.

The South African police have sought the help of the Interpol to track down youths of Asia involved in the 19 robberies that happened in their gold mines,last year.An Indian fugitive was captured by the surveillance cameras at Witwatersrand basin gold mine.

There were 19 attacks on gold facilities last year, almost double the number in 2018, according to South Africa’s Minerals Council. More than 100 kilograms (3,527 ounces) of gold was stolen in 2019 as bullion rose to a five-year high, although not all companies disclose their losses, said the council, which represents the nation’s largest miners.

Billions of dollars’ worth of gold is being smuggled out of Africa every year through the United Arab Emirates in the Middle East – a gateway to markets in Europe, the United States and beyond.

Customs data shows that the UAE imported $15.1 billion worth of gold from Africa in 2016, more than any other country and up from $1.3 billion in 2006. The total weight was 446 tonnes, in varying degrees of purity – up from 67 tonnes in 2006.

Much of the gold was not recorded in the exports of African states. Five trade economists interviewed by Reuters said this indicates large amounts of gold are leaving Africa with no taxes being paid to the states that produce them.

Industrial mining firms in Africa confirm that they did not send their gold to the UAE – indicating that its gold imports from Africa come from other, informal sources. 

Previous reports and studies have highlighted the black-market trade in gold mined by people, including children, who have no ties to big business, and dig or pan for it with little official oversight. No-one can put an exact figure on the total value that is leaving Africa.

Informal methods of gold production, known in the industry as “artisanal” or small-scale mining, are growing globally. They have provided a livelihood to millions of Africans and help some make more money than they could dream of from traditional trades. But the methods leak chemicals into rocks, soil and rivers. And African governments such as Ghana, Tanzania and Zambia complain that gold is now being illegally produced and smuggled out of their countries on a vast scale, sometimes by criminal operations, and often at a high human and environmental cost.

Artisanal mining began as small-time ventures. But the “romantic” era of individual mining has given way to “large-scale and dangerous” operations run by foreign-controlled criminal syndicates, Ghana’s President Nana Akufo-Addo told a mining conference in February. Ghana is Africa’s second-largest gold producer.

Not everyone in the chain is breaking the law. Miners, some of them working legally, typically sell the gold to middlemen. The middlemen either fly the gold out directly or trade it across Africa’s porous borders, obscuring its origins before couriers carry it out of the continent, often in hand luggage.

For example, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is a major gold producer but one whose official exports amount to a fraction of its estimated production: Most is smuggled into neighboring Uganda and Rwanda. “It is of course worrisome for us but we have very little leverage to stop it,” said Thierry Boliki, director of the CEEC, the Congolese government body that is meant to register, value and tax high-value minerals like gold.

The customs data provided by governments to Comtrade, a United Nations database, shows the UAE has been a prime destination for gold from many African states for some years. In 2015, China – the world’s biggest gold consumer – imported more gold from Africa than the UAE. But during 2016, the latest year for which data is available, the UAE imported almost double the value taken by China. With African gold imports worth $8.5 billion that year, China came a distant second. Switzerland, the world’s gold refining hub, came third with $7.5 billion worth.

Most of the gold is traded in Dubai, home to the UAE’s gold industry.

The UAE reported gold imports from 46 African countries for 2016. Of those countries, 25 did not provide Comtrade with data on their gold exports to the UAE. But the UAE said it had imported a total of $7.4 billion worth of gold from them.

In addition, the UAE imported much more gold from most of the other 21 countries than those countries said they had exported. In all, it said it imported gold worth $3.9 billion – about 67 tonnes – more than those countries said they sent out.

Over the past decade, high demand for gold has made it attractive for informal miners to use digging equipment and toxic chemicals to boost the yield. Contaminated water is returned to rivers, slowly poisoning the people who need the water to live.

Small-scale miners have long used mercury – easy to buy at around $10 for a thumb-sized vial – to extract flecks of gold from ore, before sluicing it away. Mercury’s toxic effects include damage to kidneys, heart, liver, spleen and lungs, and neurological disorders, such as tremors and muscle weakness. Cyanide and nitric acid are also being used in the process, according to researchers and miners in Ghana.

K T Ramees

Western investors want gold so they can diversify their portfolios; India and China want it for jewelry. But most Western companies – and the banks that finance them – avoid handling non-industrial African gold directly. They are unwilling to risk using metal that may have been mined to fund conflict or that may have involved human rights abuses in, for instance, DRC or Sudan. Various Uganda-based traders have been sanctioned for handling gold smuggled out of DRC.

In other states, including the UAE, these concerns have been less of a problem. Over the last decade, gold from Africa has become increasingly important for Dubai. From 2006 to 2016, the share of African gold in UAE’s reported gold imports increased from 18 percent to nearly 50 percent, Comtrade data showed.

The UAE’s main commodity marketplace, the Dubai Multi-Commodities Centre (DMCC), calls itself on its website “your gateway to global trade.” Trading in gold accounts for nearly one-fifth of UAE’s GDP.

However, no big industrial companies, including AngloGold Ashanti, Sibanye-Stillwater and Gold Fields,say they send gold there. 23 mining companies with African operations, the smallest of which produced around 2.5 tonnes in 2018: 21 of them said they did not send metal to Dubai for refining, the other two did not respond.

While the big South African miners have local refining capacity, the main reason others gave is that no UAE refineries are accredited by the London Bullion Market Association (LBMA), the standard-setter for the industry in Western markets.

Gold can be imported to Dubai with little documentation. A number of refineries accept gold that has been imported as hand luggage.

A Tanzanian parliamentary report estimated that 90 percent of annual production of informally mined gold is smuggled out of the country: The government wants the central bank to buy this up.

In Burkina Faso, Oumarou Idani, minister of mines, believes his country is leaking gold to UAE on a massive scale. Of the 9.5 tonnes of gold the government estimates informal miners dig up each year, just 200 to 400 kg are declared to the authorities.

Saniniu Laizer

Miner Earns Rs 40 Crore with Three Gem Stones

A Tanzanian small-scale miner, who became an overnight millionaire in June for selling two rough Tanzanite stones valued at $3.4m ( Rs 25 Cr), has sold another gem for $2m ( Rs 15 Cr).

The third discovery by Saniniu Laizer weighed 6.3kg (14lb).

Tanzanite is only found in northern Tanzania and is used to make ornaments.

It is one of the rarest gemstones on Earth, and one local geologist estimates its supply may be entirely depleted within the next 20 years.

The precious stone’s appeal lies in its variety of hues, including green, red, purple and blue.

Its value is determined by rarity – the finer the colour or clarity, the higher the price.

Mr Lazier urged his fellow small-scale miners to work with the government, saying that his experience was a good example.

“Selling to the government means there are no shortcuts… they are transparent,” he said in his remarks at a ceremony in the northern Mirerani mine.

Artisanal miners often complain about late payments of their royalties by mine owners.

The two gemstones he got earlier

After his June sale of two rocks weighing 9.2kg and 5.8kg, Mr Laizer – a father of more than 30 children – said that he would hold a party.

But on Monday he said the money will be used to build a school and a health facility in his community in Simanjiro district in northern Manyara region.

He told the BBC two months ago that the windfall would not change his lifestyle, and that he planned to continue looking after his 2,000 cows, adding that he did not need to take any extra precautions despite his new-found riches.

Some small-scale miners like Mr Laizer acquire government licences to prospect for Tanzanite, but illegal mining is prevalent especially near mines owned by big companies.

In 2017, President Magufuli ordered the military to build a 24km (14-mile) perimeter wall around the Merelani mining site in Manyara, believed to be the world’s only source of Tanzanite.

A year later, the government reported an increase in revenue in the mining sector and attributed the rise to the construction of the wall.

© Ramachandran 

THE FIRST TWO FEMALE DOCTORS IN INDIA

They Fought Against the Orthodoxy

Anandibai Gopalrao Joshi was the first female Indian physician. She was also the first woman in India to complete her studies in western medicine from the United States. Anandibai has a rich legacy and inspired many women to pursue the field of of medicine in India and in the United States.

Anandibai also became the first woman from Bombay presidency of India to study and graduate with a two-year degree in western medicine from a foreign country.

On March 31, 1865, in Pune, a girl child was born to Gangabai and Ganpatrao Joshi — their fifth child, whom they named Yamuna. On her ninth birthday, March 31, 1874, she was married to Gopalrao Joshee, a widower of about 26, employed as a postmaster at Thane.

Anandibai was born with the name 'Yamuna' but was later given the name anandi by her husband Gopalrao Joshi. She was born in a family of landlords and due to parental pressure, she got married at the young age of nine.

Anandibai bore her first child at the age of 14 but due to lack of medical care, the child passed away after ten days. This incident was a turning point in Anandibai's life and she chose to pursue medicine, with the support of her husband.

Anandibai Joshi

Gopalrao, who was a progressive thinker and supported education for women, enrolled her in a missionary school, and later moved to Calcutta with her, where she learnt how to speak Sanskrit and English.

In the 1800's, it was very unusual for husbands to focus on their wives' education. Gopalrao was obsessed with the idea of Anandibai's education and wanted her to learn medicine and create her own identity in the world.

One day, Gopalrao walked into the kitchen and threw a fit of rage when he saw Anandibai cooking instead of studying. This made her even more focussed on her education.

Gopalrao took the decision of sending Anandibai to America to study medicine in utmost detail with a missionary from Philadelphia named Royal Wilder.In 1880 he sent a letter to Royal Wilder, stating his wife's interest in studying medicine in the United States and inquiring about a suitable post in the US for himself. Wilder published the correspondence in his Princeton's Missionary Review. Theodicia Carpenter, a resident of Roselle, New Jersey, happened to read it while waiting to see her dentist. Impressed by both Anandibai's desire to study medicine, and Gopalrao's support for his wife, she wrote to Anandibai. Carpenter and Anandibai developed a close friendship and came to refer to each other as "aunt" and "niece." Later, Carpenter would host Anandibai in Rochelle during Joshi's stay in the U S.

While the Joshi couple was in Calcutta, Anandibai's health was declining. She suffered from weakness, constant headaches, occasional fever, and sometimes breathlessness. Theodicia sent her medicines from America, without results. In 1883, Gopalrao was transferred to Serampore, and he decided to send Anandibai by herself to America for her medical studies despite her poor health. Though apprehensive, Gopalrao convinced her to set an example for other women by pursuing higher education.

A physician couple named Thorborn suggested that Anandibai apply to the Woman's Medical College of Pennsylvania. On learning of Anandibai's plans to pursue higher education in the West, orthodox Indian society censured her very strongly.

Anandibai addressed the community at Serampore College Hall in 1883, explaining her decision to go to America and obtain a medical degree. She discussed the persecution she and her husband had endured. She stressed the need for female doctors in India, emphasizing that Hindu women could better serve as physicians to Hindu women. She said,"I volunteer myself as one", in the gathering. Her speech received publicity, and financial contributions started pouring in from all over India. 

She had also expressed her views on how midwifery was not sufficient in any case of medical emergency and how the instructors who taught women had conservative views.

In the speech, “Why do I go to America?”, she addressed six questions that were posed to her often. She stated: “In my humble opinion there is a growing need for Hindu lady doctors in India, and I volunteer to qualify myself for one.” To the question “Are there no means to study in India?” she replied thus: “[T]he instructors who teach these classes are conservative and to some extent jealous... That is characteristic of the male sex. We must put up with this inconvenience until we have a class of educated ladies to relieve these men.”

This is a bold indictment of the gender question in education, at a time when women’s education was not a priority.

After her motivating speech in the public gathering, she expressed her views on studying medicine in America. She also stressed the need of female doctors in India and stated that Hindu women can be better doctors for other Hindu women.

Anandibai's health had started to decline but Gopalrao had urged her to go to America so that she can set an example for other women in the country.

Anandibai was urged to apply to the Women's Medical College of Pennsylvania but learning about her plan to pursue higher education, the Hindu society of India decided to censure her very strongly.Anandibai travelled to New York from Kolkata  by ship, chaperoned by two female English missionary acquaintances of the Thorborns. In New York, Theodicia Carpenter received her in June 1883.

Anandibai was enrolled in the Women's Medical College of Pennsylvania and completed her two-year course in medicine at the age of 19. She graduated with an MD in 1886 with the topic of her thesis being 'Obstetrics among the Aryan Hindoos'.

She highlighted the environment she lived in and how she dealt with it in a letter written to her husband after reaching America. She was full of reasoning and entreaty: “Don’t misunderstand and make me suffer so. It is very difficult to decide whether your treatment of me was good or bad. If you ask me I would say it was both... Hitting me with broken pieces of wood at the tender age of ten, flinging chairs and books at me and threatening to leave me when I was twelve, and inflicting other strange punishments on me when I was fourteen — all these were too severe for the age, body and mind at each respective stage...”

In her thesis, she covered information form Ayurvedic texts and American textbooks. On her graduation, Queen Victoria sent her a message, expressing her delight.

Anandibai passed away due to tubercolosis at the age of 21, on 26 February 1887.

She had accepted an offer to take charge of the Edward Albert Memorial Hospital in Kolhapur, which unfortunately never materialised. In many ways, her life was similar to that of Srinivasa Ramanujan (1887 -1920) who shook the world of mathematics, but died young of tuberculosis aggravated by malnourishment and lack of care. Certainly, her achievements ought to be celebrated as no less a feat.

It was against all odds that Anandibai became the first Indian woman doctor. Ironically, when she was dying, the healing power of this very trade was denied her, as the book reveals.

In India, Kesari and The Mahratta, run by Bal Gangadhar Tilak, were quick to take up stories on the Joshis who were portrayed as social reformers. Pandita Ramabai, on the other hand, who had travelled to England for her education and converted to Christianity there, was strongly criticised by this section, even though she was doing well. Ramabai was invited by Anandibai’s mentor, Dean Bodley, for the latter’s graduation ceremony, and Ramabai travelled to America just for this. Anandibai wrote of Ramabai thus: “...her courage has outweighed that of the sternest and bravest warrior.”

Even after her death, several writers and researchers continued to write about her to raise awareness about the importance of educating women in India.

Doordarshan also based a television series on her life and American feminist writer Caroline Wells Healey Dall penned down her biography in 1888:The Life of Dr. Anandabai Joshee, a Kinswoman of the Pundita Ramabai.Dall was acquainted with Joshi and admired her greatly. However, certain points in the biography, particularly its harsh treatment of Gopalrao Joshi, sparked controversy among Joshi's friends.

The Institute of Research and Documentation in Social Sciences (IRDS), Lucknow has been awarding the Anandibai Joshi Award in Medicine in honour of her contributions towards the advancements of medical sciences in India.

The book Fragmented Feminism chronicles the time from which Yamuna became Anandibai until the day she died. The book reveals Anandibai as she was — through her own letters and in her own voice, with helpful annotations by the author Meera Kosambi and three editors — Ram Ramaswamy, Madhavi Kolhatkar and Aban Mukherji. It reveals her flowering individuality, determination and agency in the face of a strongly patriarchal culture, a domineering, volatile husband and the travails of living in an unfamiliar land so far from home.

There is a major confusion between Anandibai Joshi and Kadambini Ganguly, with regards to who was the first female doctor of India. Anandibai got her degree in western medicine from Women's Medical College of Pennsylvania while Kadambini completed her education in India.

Tragically, Anandibai passed away due to tubercolosis at the age of 22, before she got a chance to practice medicine.

Thus, Kadambini Ganguly was the first female doctor to practice medicine while Anandibai Joshi was the first female doctor who got her degree in western medicine from the United States.

Kadambini

Kadambini Ganguly ( 1861 – 3 October 1923) along with Anandibai Joshi was one of the first two female physicians from India as well as from the entire British Empire. Kadambini, herself, was also the first Indian as well as South Asian female physician, trained in western medicine, to graduate in South Asia.

The daughter of Brahmo reformer Braja Kishore Basu, Kadambini was born on 18 July 1861 at Bhagalpur, Bihar in British India. The family was from Chandsi, in Barisal which is now in Bangladesh. Her father was headmaster of Bhagalpur School. He and Abhay Charan Mallick started the movement for women's emancipation at Bhagalpur, establishing the women's organisation Bhagalpur Mahila Samiti in 1863, the first in India.

Kadambini started her education at Banga Mahila Vidyalaya and while at Bethune School (established by Bethune) in 1878 became the first woman to pass the University of Calcutta entrance examination. It was partly in recognition of her efforts that Bethune College first introduced FA (First Arts), and then graduation courses in 1883. She and Chandramukhi Basu became the first graduates from Bethune College, and in the process became the first female graduates in the country and in the entire British Empire.

Kadambini joined the medical college in 1883 despite strong criticism from the society opposing women liberation. In 1886, she was awarded GBMC and became the first woman physician with a Western medical degree in the whole of South Asia. In 1893, she travelled to Edinburgh and qualified as LRCP (Edinburgh), LRCS (Glasgow) and GFPS (Dublin).

As the mother of eight children ( children from her husband's first marriage too) , she had to devote considerable time to her household affairs. She was deft in needlework.

The noted American historian David Kopf has written, "Ganguli's wife, Kadambini, was appropriately enough the most accomplished and liberated Brahmo woman of her time. From all accounts, their relationship was most unusual in being founded on mutual love, sensitivity and intelligence… Mrs. Ganguli's case was hardly typical even among the more emancipated Brahmo and Christian women in contemporary Bengali society. Her ability to rise above circumstances and to realize her potential as a human being made her a prize attraction to Sadharan Brahmos dedicated ideologically to the liberation of Bengal's women."

She was heavily criticised by the then conservative society opposing women liberation. After returning to India and campaigning for women's rights ceaselessly, she was indirectly called a 'whore' in the magazine 'Bangabashi', but that could not deter her determination. Her husband, Dwarkanath Ganguly, took the case up to the court and eventually won with a jail sentence of 6 months meted out to the editor Mahesh Pal.

Dwarakanath

Dwarkanath Ganguly ( 1844 –  1898) was a Brahmo reformer and novelist in Bengal of British India. He made substantial contribution towards the enlightenment of society and the emancipation of women. He dedicated his whole life for the cause of women emancipation and encouraged them to participate in every walk of life be it politics, social services etc and even helped them to form organizations of their own.

Ganguly was born at Magurkhanda village, Bikrampur, Dhaka (now in Bangladesh) on 20 April 1844. His father, Krishnapran Gangopadhyay, was a compassionate and humble man while his mother, Udaytara, belonged to a rich family, and was a strong willed woman. He was deeply influenced by his mother from childhood, who instilled into him love for truth and justice.

While studying in school he became strongly influenced by the writings of Akshay Kumar Dutta's 'Dharma Niti' that elaborated on the then prevalent social problems as polygamy, child marriage, inter-caste marriage and widow remarriage. He was deeply touched by the plight of the Bengali woman, and was influenced by Dutta‟s main thesis that “the first vital step to social regeneration is liberating woman from her bondage”. He began attempting to propagate Datta's ideas along with his socially conscious school friends. His reformist activities resulted in him failing to pass the Entrance Examination as he was unable to spend enough time on school curriculum. He turned out to be self taught thereafter.

In those days, it was customary for  Brahmin men to practice polygamy, which formed a way to earn money in way of gifts presented to the groom by the bride's father. When Dwarkanath was 17 years old, he heard about the honor killing of a girl,who had strayed from her course, by poisoning her. On realizing that it was common practice in orthodox upper caste families, he vowed not to go in for polygamous marriage. This incident also pained Dwarkanath to such an extent that he began to empathize towards the condition of women in society. His failure in the Entrance Examination combined with increasing disagreement with his relatives and the local people over his progressive ideas of social reform, made him leave home in search of an independent livelihood. His vow to monogamy and work to the cause of improving women‟s position in society, made him grow steadily in stature as a social reformer. He started his teaching career and worked at Sonarang, Olpur in Faridpur and in the minor school at Lonsingh (now all are in Bangladesh).

A number of years after the death of his first wife, he re-married, in 1883, Kadambini Ganguly nee Bose, one of the first woman graduates in the British Empire. Dwarkanath fought for her admission into Calcutta Medical College and secured it. 

He had eight children from both his marriages. His eldest daughter, Bidhumukhi, from his first alliance was married to Upendra Kishore Ray Chaudhuri.

© Ramachandran 

MODI'S HERO RAJA SUHALDEV:MYTH AND REALITY

R S S Constantly Mentions the Raja

During his speech at the Ram Mandir Bhoomi Pujan ceremony, Prime Minister Narendra Modi made a reference to Raja Suhaldev.

Modi said that the manner in which the poor and people from backward classes came to Raja Suhaldev’s support in repelling foreign invaders, in a similar manner the Bhavya Ram Mandir will be constructed at Ayodhya with support from people of the entire country.

Who is Raja Suhaldev?

Very little is known about Raja Suhaldev today. He was an 11th Century ruler from the backward  Pasi community of Shravasti, a kingdom which was located in present-day Bahraich district of Uttar Pradesh. He is said to have ruled the state from 1027 to 1077.

It is generally agreed that Raja Suhaldev had defeated Ghazi Salar Masud in the Battle of Bahraich in 1034 and killed the invader. Earlier, the local Raja of Bahraich had formed a confederation of Hindus to combat Salar Masud, however, the Islamic invader managed to defeat them. Ghazi Salar Masud was the nephew of barbaric invader Mahmud of Ghazni.

Masud had managed to conquer Multan, Delhi, Meerut and marched forward. Along the way, the Islamic invader displayed his fanaticism and is said to have destroyed numerous Hindu Temples and Mutts. His advent was halted by Raja Suhaldev.

After several kings were defeated by him, some other kings from Meerut, Badaun, Kannauj etc decided to ally with him instead of fighting against his mighty army. After conquering these places, Masud had planned to invade Ayodhya, a sacred city for Hindus. But to reach Ayodhya, his army had to cross Bahraich first, a place under Shravasti. But Raja Suhaldev became aware of Masud’s plans, and he prepared a counter-attack. He talked to kings of the neighbouring states, and they together formed a large defence force against the invader.

Although the Suhaldev’s army had to face defeat initially, the king motivated the soldiers to fight back with full force, saying that not a single foe should not return alive. After days of intense battle in 1034, Raja Suhaldev was able to trap Salar Masud, and the Muslim invader was killed in the battle. According to legends, none of the 1.5 lakh soldiers in Masud’s army survived the battle.

Masud was buried in Bahraich, and in 1035 CE, a dargah was built to commemorate him.The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) claims that the site was once an ashram (hermitage) of the Hindu saint Balark Rishi, and was converted to a dargah by Feroze Tughlaq.

Raja Suhaldev is regarded as a Gaurakshak, patron of Saints and patron of Hindus. Amish Tripathi’s book on the legendary king calls him a “charismatic leader”, a “fierce rebel” and an “inclusive patriot”. While there are numerous Hindus communities that lay a claim to him, he is believed to be from the Pasi community, which belongs to the Scheduled Castes.

He is mentioned in the 17th century Persian-language historical romance, Mirat-i-Masudi.

Modi and other leaders of the Bharatiya Janata Party have paid homage to the legendary King in the past as well. In 2016, then BJP President Amit Shah inaugurated a statue to the iconic King in 2016 and launched a book on him. Shah described him as a “Rashtriya Nayak” whose accomplishment ought to serve as an inspiration to the youth of today.

Shah had said, “Brave King Suheldev is not forgotten by the people of this country even after 1,000 years. People who don’t remember their brave ancestors cannot make history. Only those who carry on with their fight can make history.” Prime Minister Modi released a commemorative postage stamp on Raja Suhaldev two years later.

The Indian Railways, has reversed its policy of not naming trains after personalities and started the Suheldev Express between Ghazipur and Delhi.Salar Masud, popularly known as Ghazi Miyan, has a mausoleum in Bahraich which attracts people,  during his uroos (death ceremony) celebrations every year.

The poet Amir Khusro alluded to him in a letter he wrote in 1291. In 1341, the Moroccan traveler Ibn Batuta accompanied the Sultan of Delhi, Mohammad bin Tughlaq, to the Bahraich shrine. Tughlaq’s successor Firoz Shah Tughlaq had his head shaved after .Masud’s death turned him into a martyr.His commander subsequently slew Suheldev.These details, spun in manifold ways, have been taken from Mirat-i-Masudi or Mirror of Masud, a Persian hagiography written by Abdur Rahman Chishti in the 1620s. A biography authored six centuries after the subject’s death, obviously, raises several questions about its authenticity.

This point is made sharply by historian Shahid Amin in his  work, Conquest and Community: The Afterlife of Warrior Saint Ghazi Miyan.Bahraich’s warrior-saint appeared in his dream. In 1571, the Mughal emperor Akbar made a land grant for the upkeep of the Ghazi Miyan shrine.

In 1950, Hindu Mahasabha, and the Ram Rajya Parishad organised a fair at Chittora village, Bahraich district, to commemorate the memory of Suhaldev (same as Suheldev), writes Badri Narayan in his book Fascinating Hindutva: Saffron Politics and Mobilisation. The fair was to be inaugurated by a state-level Congress leader at whose house Nehru and Gandhi had stayed on their visits to Bahraich.On the day of inauguration, however, a member of the Bahraich dargah committee complained to the administration that a riot-like situation had been created. Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code – prohibiting the gathering of more than five people – was imposed, triggering a riot.Enthused, local Congress leaders inaugurated the fair. A statue of Suhaldev was erected, a temple was subsequently built around it, writes Narayan. In 2001 the Maharaja Suhaldev Sewa Samiti was floated by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. Three years later, a five-day celebration was inaugurated by Yogi Adityanath, then the BJP MP from Gorakhpur.

Suhaldev was also mentioned by Prime Minister Modi in an Independence Day Speech and again, in Ayodhya, he made a reference to the Monarch during his speech at the Ram Mandir Janmabhoomi ceremony. The King who belonged to the Dalit community defeated the Islamic invader and helped protect the Hindu Civilization from further plunder.

The grave of Salar Masud in Bahraich

A novel on Suhaldev has been written by Amish Tripathi,published in June,2020.Legend of Suheldev: King Who Saved India is the eighth book by Amish Tripathi, and the first book from The Immortal Writers’ Centre.

The story begins in 1025 when Mahmud of Ghazni sacks Somnath Temple and breaks the idol of Lord Shiva. The prince of Shravasti, Malladev, dies trying to save the temple. When his brother Suheldev comes to know of this, he feels enraged and promises retaliation.

Together with his father King Mangaldhwaj, Suheldev goes to Kannauj to ask for King Ajitpal's help in countering Mahmud's further attacks. But instead, they are insulted and sent back. On their way back, they notice a Turkish camp and engage in a fight with them. They kill all of them and realize that the Turks can be beaten if taken by surprise. So, Suheldev decides to exile himself and attack the Turks by surprise while pretending to have rebelled against King Mangaldhwaj so that Mahmud doesn't attack Shravasti.

Years pass and by 1029, Suheldev becomes famous as the bandit prince and a thorn in the side of the Turks. During this time, he also loots Qasar Khan, a special envoy of Mahmud and the governor of Kannauj but treats his wife with respect and is kind to his six year old. After looting them, he lets them go. He also visits Bareilly and meets a Turk called Aslan who is a disciple of the Sufi saint Nuruddin Shaikh. Once a maulvi, called Zayan gets into a conflict with Nuruddin calling him a supporter of kafirs and Zayan's nephew attacks Nuruddin. In order to save Nuruddin, Aslan attacks Zayan's nephew, killing him in the process. Due to this Nuruddin casts Aslan away as he hates bloodshed. Suheldev who was watching this befriends Aslan and invites him to join his team to which he agrees. He sometimes goes to spy on Turk soldiers for Suheldev as he himself is a Turk and understands Turkish.

In 1030, the Turks attack Delhi. Delhi's king Mahipal Tomar is killed in the battle and the Turks win. After winning, the Turks kill all the soldiers and men in Delhi, not even sparing babies. Women are sold in slave markets. Everyone who was related to the king is killed so that there can be no claim to the throne except for two people — Jaichand, Mahipal's son-in-law and the ruler of Sirat who wasn't present in Delhi and the king's commander-in-chief Govardhan whose father was the king's fifth cousin. Govardhan is saved because he retreats in time with a band of 30 soldiers.

Govardhan decides to go to Sirat for Jaichand's help but on the way, a woman tells him that Jaichand is a supporter of the Turks and he would hand him over to them and that was the reason why he didn't help Mahipal in the battle. The woman is later revealed to be Suheldev's spy and tells him the whereabouts of Suheldev and Govardhan joins his team.

Suheldev and his team go to villages attacked by the Turks. On one such visit, he goes to a village of leather workers which is destroyed by the Turks and all the people killed except a woman called Toshani who was saved because she was away when the Turks attacked. Toshani used to be a soldier in Kannauj army but deserted it when Kannauj surrendered to Mahmud of Ghazni. Toshani joins Suheldev's team. Suheldev later falls in love with Toshani.

In one of his attack on Turks, Suheldev is gravely injured and could have died, had Aslan not saved him. But it turned out that Aslan was actually Mahmud's nephew Ghazi Saiyyad Salar Masud in disguise and he only helped and saved Suheldev to kill him at the right place and at the right time so that he may be made into a good example. It also turns out that he went to meet Karim in his spy mission, who was the head of Turkish invasion of India. It is also revealed that Karim was Maqsud's lover.

In the meantime, Mahmud dies of some unknown reason and a civil war breaks out among his sons. As a result, all the Turk armies are called back and so is Maqsud as he was Mahmud's strongest commander in chief. So he tells the news of Mahmud's death to Suheldev saying Turks are not going to attack India for some years as they are into a civil war. He further tells him that he is not required in the mission for sometime as the Turks are gone and he is going to find some new sufi master for himself. Thus, he leaves Suheldev and sets back to Ghazni in order to help Mahmud's rightful heir get the throne. In the mean time, Mangaldhwaj dies of cancer and Suheldev returns to his kingdom and ascends the throne. Before his death, Mangaldhwaj, had created a confedracy of 21 kings to repel any Turkic invasion and Suheldev leads it.

In 1033, the war of succession in Ghazni ended with Mas'ud I of Ghazni as the new sultan who killed his younger brother Muhammad of Ghazni to get the throne. After becoming the emperor, he sends Salar Maqsud to India with a very large army to make it a part of the Ghaznavid Empire.

As he enters northwest India, Suheldev send his guru to Rajendra Chola for help. It is revealed that it was actually Rajendra Chola who ordered for Mahmud's assassination to avenge Somnath temple. Rajendra Chola agrees to help Suheldev.

As Maqsud advances, Ajitpal joins him with the Kannauj army. Maqsud also goes to Suheldev disguised as Aslan and gets all the information about his war strategy. But it's then revealed that Aslan was actually Maqsud's twin brother Salar Masud who supported Indians.

The battle day finally arrives. The Kannauj army refuses to fight for Maqsud and rebels but the army of Manohargarh joins Maqsud with its king Jaichand.

Finally in 1034, a fierce battle is fought at Bahraich in which Suheldev kills Jaichand but Govardhan's hand is fractured, Abdul loses an eye and Toshani is gravely injured. Suheldev is on the verge of losing but the Chola army arrives right in time to save the day. Every single Turk in their army of 60000 is killed and their bodies burned for the Turks didn't fear death but feared cremation as they believed it stops one's entry to heaven. Salar Maqsud is captured and beheaded by Suheldev publicly. His body is burnt and its ashes are sent to Ghazni in an urn. His head is preserved and sent to Ghazni along with his ashes with a message inscribed on his forehead — "Come to India as devotees and our motherland will welcome you. But come as invaders and we will burn every single one of you."

After this incident, Somnath temple is reconstructed and no foreigner dares to look at India for the next 150 years.

 The thrust of this entire novel is lack of unity in our society, basically due to caste structure and parochialism, and how the invaders took and still take advantage of this division. But, if there is a kshatriya king who is ready to be a slave to an Islamic invader rather than work with a low caste king, there is also an Indian Muslim whose love for his motherland doesn’t allow him to be lured by the call of violent pan-Islam. He refuses to buy the cruel and barbaric definition of Islam. There are more Muslim characters here who are show preference for the Sufi tradition against the violent strain of Islam.

Responding to the Marxist apologia about loot and destruction by Islamic invaders, the author tells bluntly through the hero, “Why do you think they attack our temples and destroy our idols? Wouldn’t it be more logical and rational for them to treat the idols as hostages and force us to give them money? They don’t do that because they are using our belief and faith to destroy our morale, to destroy our spirit. Because, they think that conquering a demoralised populace is much more easier. We have to pay them back in their own coin.”

© Ramachandran 

RAMA IN CONSTITUTION;NEHRU AGAINST SOMNATH

Rajendra Prasad Defied Nehru and Opened Somnath Temple

It is known that while Gandhi stood for Ramarajya,Jawaharlal Nehru preached pseudo secularism.But the India constitution carried a picture of Lord Rama.
Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad today tweeted with the picture:

"Original document of the Constitution of India has a beautiful sketch of Lord Ram, Mata Sita and Laxman returning to Ayodhya after defeating Ravana. This is available at the beginning of the chapter related to Fundamental Rights. Felt like sharing this with you all. "

After Rahul Gandhi’s 29 November 2o17 visit to the Somnath temple, Prime Minister Narendra Modi noted that Rahul had decided to “suddenly visit Somnath dada (the deity)” when his great-grandfather Jawaharlal Nehru didn’t even want the temple to be reconstructed. “(Nehru) had expressed displeasure with the reconstruction undertaken by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. If it wasn’t for Patel, the temple wouldn’t have been reconstructed,” Modi said.

What exactly happened in those years immediately after Independence? Was India’s first Prime Minister, indeed, uncomfortable about reconstructing the temple? Why?

The ancient Shiva temple at Somnath, close to Veraval in Gujarat’s Gir Somnath district, was ravaged in 1026 by Mahmud of Ghazni, who looted its riches and broke the idol — the best known among multiple attacks by a series of raiders who were drawn by the temple’s legendary wealth over the centuries. In 1842, Lord Ellenborough, Governor-General of India, issued his famous ‘Proclamation of the Gates’. Ellenborough, historian Romila Thapar recorded, asked the British army in Afghanistan to return via Ghazni, bringing back the “sandalwood gates of Somnath” that the medieval conqueror was believed to have taken away. What his forces brought to India, however, turned out to have nothing to do with Somnath. (Somnatha: The Many Voices of A History, 2004).

In the years leading up to Independence and Partition, the narrative of Hindu pride found many takers, among them K M Munshi, a Congress leader from Gujarat with strong Hindu nationalist leanings. Somnath, whose destruction had until then been of largely regional interest, was elevated into the consciousness of a deeply divided nation as a symbol of Muslim intolerance and iconoclasm. 

Somnath in ruins before reconstruction

The first major articulation of the intention to rebuild the ruined temple is believed to have been made by Sardar Patel, Nehru’s Deputy Prime Minister, at a huge public meeting in Junagadh on November 12, 1947. The nawab of Junagadh had fled to Pakistan, and the Indian Army had moved into the estate.

In one of several blogs written between 2009 and 2014 (later compiled into a book, My Take, 2014), L K Advani, said: “After returning to Delhi, (Patel) secured Gandhiji’s blessings for the (temple reconstruction) and had Pandit Nehru have it endorsed by his Cabinet. The Cabinet’s decision implied that the Government would incur the expenditure. But that evening itself, when Sardar Patel, Dr Munshi and N V Gadgil went to Gandhiji to apprise him of the Cabinet’s decision, Gandhiji welcomed it but added: Let the people and not the Government bear the expenditure.” Accordingly, a Trust was set up, with Munshi as chairman.

With Gandhi’s assassination, the Congress lost the glue that bound a set of patriots with disparate ideologies and aspirations, but who shared the one dream of a free India. The wounds of Partition were raw, and Nehru, stridently pseudo secular, had open differences with several partymen, including Patel, on issues ranging from the treatment of minorities to the choice of President .Nehru rooted for C Rajagopalachari; Patel wanted Dr Rajendra Prasad.

In December 1950, Patel died. The “one Congress leader who was of equal standing to Nehru”, was removed, historian Ramachandra Guha wrote in , India After Gandhi: The History Of The World’s Largest Democracy. One other opposing power centre now remained: Rajendra Prasad. The differences between the President and the Prime Minister came to the fore once again in 1951, when it was time to inaugurate the rebuilt Somnath temple.

In his Pilgrimage To Freedom, Munshi wrote that after a Cabinet meeting in early 1951, Nehru called him and said, “I do not like your trying to restore Somnath. It is Hindu revivalism.” Munshi, then the Food and Agriculture Minister, wrote to the Prime Minister in reply: “Yesterday you referred to Hindu revivalism. You pointedly referred to me in the Cabinet as connected with Somnath. I am glad you did so; for I do not want to keep back any part of my views or activities… I can assure you that the ‘Collective Subconscious’ of India today is happier with the scheme of reconstruction of Somnath… than with many other things that we have done and are doing.”

He then went ahead with his plan and approached President Prasad to inaugurate the rebuilt temple. Madhav Gobole, who was home secretary when Indira Gandhi was Prime Minister, and the author of The God Who Failed: An Assessment Of Jawaharlal Nehru’s Leadership (2014), points out that this incident alone — when a Minister was able to go ahead with his plan despite the PM’s obvious displeasure — proves this: “We all consider Nehru to be this all-imposing, supreme leader, but the truth is, he had his limitations. In his Cabinet, he had people with all kinds of opinions, but he believed he would be able to persuade them to come around to his view. Sometimes he was successful, sometimes he was not,” Godbole said.

Nehru persisted, writing to the President, asking him to reconsider his decision to inaugurate the temple. He wrote to Prasad: “I confess I do not like the idea of your associating yourself with a spectacular opening of the Somnath temple. This is not merely visiting a temple… but rather participating in a significant function which unfortunately has a number of implications.” (Sarvepalli Gopal, Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru).

Somnath temple with Patel statue

Guha records:"Partition had just happened. Millions of Muslims had stayed back in India and Nehru said that was enough affirmation of their citizenship; they don’t need to go through some kind of loyalty test. He was very conscious of their vulnerability and insecurities. Hindus and Muslims had been at each other’s throats only a couple of years earlier, and Nehru didn’t want to polarise communities again, reopen old wounds just when India was settling down. Those were fragile times, and Nehru thought it was unnecessary for the President to associate himself with a temple that was destroyed by a Muslim invader hundreds of years ago, when Muslims of India have nothing to do with Mahmud of Ghazni.”

I don't subscribe to this.The fact is,Nehru never liked Rajendra Prasad.He had blocked Prasad when he wanted to see the discussion in the Lok Sabha from the President's enclosure.Nehru reprimanded the President by saying the enclosure was for the President's guests.

Prasad decided to inaugurate the temple anyway. On May 2, 1951, a distressed Nehru wrote to Chief Ministers: “It should be clearly understood that this function is not governmental and the GoI has nothing to do with it… We must not do anything that comes in the way of our state being secular. This is the basis of the Constitution and governments, therefore, should refrain from associating themselves with anything that tends to affect the secular character of our State.”

Prasad wrote back, saying, “I believe in my religion and cannot cut myself away from it.” (Durga Das, India: From Curzon To Nehru And After, 2004)

On May 11, 1951, the President inaugurated the grand, rebuilt Somnath temple.

Rajendra Prsad and Patel were Gandhi's true disciples,whereas Nehru was not.

    

          K. M. Munshi with archaeologists and engineers of the
         Government of India, Bombay, and Saurashtra, with the
          ruins of     Somnath Temple in the background, July 1950.

Located near Veraval, at Saurashtra in the western coast of Gujarat, the Somnath temple is believed to be the first among the 12 jyotirlinga shrines of Shiva. The site which was part of the erstwhile princely state of Junagadh, is also connected to Lord Krishna. Most historical accounts suggest that the temple was ravaged in 1026 CE by the Turkik ruler, Mahmud of Ghazni who looted its riches and desecrated the idol.

In the years preceding the Independence of the country, K M Munshi, a Congress leader from Gujarat, expressed his disappointment at the nation’s inability to rescue the spot of Krishna’s worship for all these generations. “My heart was full of veneration and shame. Millions have worshipped and worship today, Shri Krishna as ‘God himself’…none had dared to raise his voice to rescue the sacred spot where once His mortal remains had been consigned to flames… Reconstruction of Somanatha was then but the nebulous dream of a habitual dreamer,” Munshi wrote in his book, ‘Somanatha: the shrine eternal’, recollecting his visit to the ruins of the ancient temple in 1922. Munshi’s words had turned the issue of Somanatha from a largely regional issue to one of national and Hindu pride.

At the time of India’s Independence, the nawab of Junagadh decided to accede to Pakistan, even though 82 per cent of Junagadh’s population was Hindu. The Indian National Congress formed a parallel government and led an uprising against the nawab who fled to Pakistan. Consequently, the dewan handed over Junagadh to Indian administration.Soon after, on November 12, 1947, the then home minister of India, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel visited Junagadh.

A trust was created with Munshi as its chairman.

Rajendra Prasad in Somnath Temple

With the death of Patel in 1950 though, the responsibility of the reconstruction fell on Munshi’s shoulders. Since the Independence of the country, Patel and Nehru had been at odds on many issues ranging from who should be president of the country to who should take the presidency of the Congress party. On the question of minorities too, the two stalwarts were at odds. “Nehru felt that it was the responsibility of the Congress and the government to make the Muslims in India feel secure. Patel, on the other hand was inclined to place the responsibility on the minorities themselves,” writes historian Ramachandra Guha, in his book, ‘India after Gandhi’.

Guha further notes that Patel’s death “removed the one Congress politician who was of equal standing to Nehru.” But the prime minister still had to deal with differences with two other leaders — Congress president Puroshottamdas Tandon and President Rajendra Prasad. “It was clear that the prime minister and the president differed on some crucial subjects, such as the place of religion in public life,” writes Guha.

Later Munshi went ahead with his plans and asked Prasad to inaugurate the temple. When he heard of Prasad’s presence at the event, Nehru was appalled. He wrote to him expressing his disapproval. “Personally, I thought this was no time to lay stress on large-scale building operations at Somnath. This could have been done gradually and more effectively later. However, this has been done. [Still] I feel that it would be better if you did not preside over the functions,” he wrote.

While Prasad disregarded the advice of the prime minister and went ahead with the inauguration ceremony, he was sure to emphasise on the Gandhian ideal of inter-faith harmony in his speech at Somnath. He pointed out that to reconstruct the temple was “not to open old wounds”, but rather “to help each caste and community obtain full freedom”.

At Somnath, Prasad justified his idea of state and religion thus: “I respect all religions and on occasion visit a church, a mosque, a dargah and a gurdwara.”

© Ramachandran 

ജലീൽ,ഗൾഫിൽ ക്ഷേത്രമില്ല

മന്ത്രി  കെ ടി ജലീൽ,ഖുർ ആൻ വിതരണമാണ് സി ആപ്റ്റിൻറെ വണ്ടി ഉപയോഗിച്ച് താൻ നടത്തിയത് എന്ന് വിശദീകരിക്കുന്ന കുറിപ്പിൽ ഇങ്ങനെ പറയുന്നു:

"ഇന്ത്യക്കാർക്ക്, വിശേഷിച്ച് മലയാളികൾക്ക്, വീടു വിട്ടാൽ മറ്റൊരു വിടു തന്നെയാണ് UAE. ആ ആത്മബന്ധം നില നിൽക്കുന്നത് കൊണ്ടാണ് പ്രധാനമന്ത്രി നരേന്ദ്രമോദി തൻ്റെ UAE സന്ദർശന വേളയിൽ അവിടെ ലോകോത്തരമായ ഒരു ക്ഷേത്രം നിർമ്മിക്കുന്നതിനുള്ള അനുമതിയും അതിനാവശ്യമായ സ്ഥലവും UAE ഭരണാധികാരിയോട് ആവശ്യപ്പെട്ടത്. ചോദിക്കേണ്ട താമസം, നിർമ്മാണാനുമതിയും അതിനാവശ്യമായ ഏക്കർ കണക്കിന്‌ സൗജന്യ ഭൂമിയുമാണ് അവർ നൽകിയത്. ക്ഷേത്രം സ്ഥാപിക്കുന്നതിൻ്റെ മുന്നോടിയായുള്ള പൂജാദി കർമ്മങ്ങൾ ഇതിനകം തന്നെ പൂർത്തിയാക്കി ക്ഷേത്ര നിർമ്മാണം ആരംഭിച്ചതായാണ് അറിവ്." 

മോദി ആവശ്യപ്പെട്ടത് പ്രകാരം അവിടെ ക്ഷേത്രം പണിയുന്നതും ഇവിടെ നിയമവിരുദ്ധമായി ഖുർ ആൻ സർക്കാർ വണ്ടിയിൽ വിതരണം ചെയ്യുന്നതും തമ്മിൽ എന്താണ് ബന്ധം ?ക്ഷേത്ര കാര്യം പറഞ്ഞ് ഹിന്ദു വികാരം ഒപ്പം നിർത്താനുള്ള ശ്രമം ആണെങ്കിൽ ജലീലിന് തെറ്റി.

മോദി അവിടെ സന്ദർശനം നടത്തുന്നത് 2015 ലാണ്.അന്ന് അനുമതി നൽകിയത് അബുദബിയിൽ സ്വാമിനാരായൺ സംഘടനയ്ക്ക് ക്ഷേത്രം പണിയാനാണ്.2103 ജൂലൈയിൽ തന്നെ ഒരു മുസ്ലിം വ്യവസായി ഇതിന് അഞ്ച് ഏക്കർ സംഭാവന ചെയ്തിരുന്നു.ദുബായ് ഹൈവേയിലാണ് ക്ഷേത്ര നിർമാണം.

ക്ഷേത്രത്തിൽ വിഗ്രഹങ്ങൾ വയ്ക്കാൻ അവകാശമില്ല.ചിത്രങ്ങളേ ആകാവൂ.അവിടത്തെ മത നിയമമാണ് ബാധകം.അതായത്.ഹിന്ദു ക്ഷേത്ര തച്ചു ശാസ്ത്രം വിലപ്പോവില്ല.യഥാർത്ഥത്തിൽ ഇത് ഒരു ക്ഷേത്രം അല്ല.

ജലീലിന് അറിയാത്തത്,ദുബായിൽ മുൻപേ ഒരു ക്ഷേത്രം ഉണ്ട് എന്നുള്ളതാണ്.1958 ൽ ഷെയ്ഖ്‌ റാഷിദ് ബിൻ സായിദ്‌ അൽ മഖ്‌ദൂം  അനുവദിച്ചതാണ് ഇത്.ഇതും നിയതമായ അർത്ഥത്തിൽ ക്ഷേത്രം അല്ല.ശിവനും കൃഷ്ണനും ഷിർദി സായി ബാബയ്ക്കുമുള്ള പ്രാർത്ഥനാ ഹാൾ മാത്രമാണ്,ഇത്.ഇന്ത്യൻ കോൺസുലേറ്റിന്റെ അധീനതയിലുള്ള ഈ 'ക്ഷേത്ര'ത്തിലും ചിത്രങ്ങളേയുള്ളു.ഇവിടെ ഹിന്ദു വിവാഹങ്ങൾ നടത്താമെങ്കിലും അവ റജിസ്റ്റർ ചെയ്യാൻ യു എ ഇ യിൽ നിയമമില്ല.ബർ ദുബായ് ഓൾഡ് സൂക്കിലെ ഒരു കച്ചവട സമുച്ചയത്തിൻറെ മുകളിലെ ചെറിയ മുറിയാണ് ഇത് എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞാൽ തന്നെ ഇത് ക്ഷേത്രമല്ല എന്ന് മനസ്സിലാകും.പുതിയ ദുബായ് നഗരത്തിൽ നിന്ന് ഒരു മണിക്കൂർ യാത്ര ചെയ്താൽ എത്തുന്ന പഴയ നഗരത്തിലാണ്,ഇത്.ഒരു സമയത്ത് 10 -15 പേർക്കേ ഈ മുറിയിൽ നിൽക്കാൻ കഴിയൂ.

നരേന്ദ്ര മോദി ക്ഷേത്ര മാതൃകയോടൊപ്പം 

ഇതേ മുറിയാണ് ഗുരുദ്വാരയായി സിക്കുകാരും ഉപയോഗിച്ചിരുന്നത്.പിന്നീട് ജബൽ അലിയിൽ അവർക്ക് വേറെ സ്ഥലം കിട്ടി.

ഈ ഗതികെട്ട സാഹചര്യത്തിൽ,അബുദബിയിൽ സ്വാമി നാരായൺ 'ക്ഷേത്ര'ത്തിന് 2018 ഫെബ്രുവരി 11 ന് ശിലാന്യാസം നടന്നു.ദുബായ് ഓപ്പറ ഹൗസിൽ നിന്ന് മോദി ഇത് വിഡിയോയിൽ കണ്ടു. 

രാജസ്ഥാനിൽ നിന്ന് കല്ലുകൾ കൊണ്ട് വന്നു.2019 ജനുവരിയിൽ 14 ഏക്കർ കൂടി കിട്ടി.ഏപ്രിൽ 20 ന് കല്ലിട്ടു.മഹന്ത് സ്വാമി മഹാരാജിൻറെ സാന്നിധ്യത്തിൽ വേദ മന്ത്രങ്ങൾ ഉരുവിട്ടു.ഓഗസ്റ്റിൽ ഇവിടെ രക്ഷാബന്ധനും ജന്മാഷ്ടമിയും കൊണ്ടാടി.ഇവിടെ വിഗ്രഹങ്ങളില്ല.ഇതും പ്രാർത്ഥനാലയം മാത്രമാണ്.ഇത് 2022 ൽ തുറക്കും.

അത് കൊണ്ട് ജലീൽ,യു എ ഇ യിൽ താങ്കൾ പറയുന്ന പോലെ ഒരു ക്ഷേത്രം ഇല്ല.അവിടെ മതേതരത്വം സാധ്യമല്ല.

ഇവിടെ എന്തുമാകാം;ഖുർ ആൻ സർക്കാർ വണ്ടിയിൽ കടത്താം;സ്വർണവും കടത്താം.അതിന് ശേഷം ഘോര ഘോരം മതേതരത്വം വിളമ്പാം.

© Ramachandran 

WHY RAJIV GANDHI WANTED THE RAM TEMPLE

He Fumbled on the Muslim Personal Law

Digvijay Singh,Congress leader has said that Rajiv Gandhi had wanted the Ram temple at Ayodhya.How far it is true?

The answer is there in Zoya Hassan's book,Congress After Indira.

Halfway through his five-year term as prime minister, Rajiv Gandhi had faltered in most of his major initiatives.

One of the cardinal mistakes was to get directly involved in the controversy over the role of the state in regulating the personal law of religious minorities, and that at a time when Hindutva politics were on the rise. The timing of this initiative was obviously wrong. The prime minister, concerned about losing Muslim support, decided to enact the Muslim Women’s (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act (MWA) of 1986. This was done to revoke the landmark Supreme Court judgement, which granted a maintenance allowance to Shah Bano, a 73-year-old Muslim divorcee, to be paid by her husband under the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr Pc).

Rajiv Gandhi at Rishikesh,1991

The Court ruled that Section 125, as part of criminal rather than civil law, overrode all personal law and was uniformly applicable to all women, including Muslim women. At stake in this case was the right of a divorced Muslim woman to claim maintenance from her former husband under the Cr Pc.The verdict of the court was correct,and it would have been judicious on the part of Rajiv Gandhi,if he had gone with it,and had won the Hindu psyche.

This controversy sparked off a huge political uproar, demanding exclusion of Muslim women from the purview of the Cr Pc, to which otherwise all citizens have recourse. Acting on the advice of the clergy, the Congress government took the decision to nullify the court’s verdict and enact the MWA, declaring that Muslim women would not have recourse to the provisions of the Cr Pc in regard to maintenance in the event of divorce. Rajiv Gandhi succumbed to pressure from Muslims leaders in his own party to pass this statute.

This one piece of legislation which allowed Muslim personal law to prevail in reversal of the court decision ruined his reputation for modernity and progressiveness, and the move inflamed Hindu sentiments. It became a bone of contention between Muslim conservatives and critics of the government.

This excessive regard for Muslim sensibilities on personal law provoked an indignant reaction that India would be overrun by a rapidly rising Muslim population propagated by multiple wives. There was strong opposition from the middle classes, from Hindus more generally, and from the women’s movement, which regarded the MWA as a concession to Muslim fundamentalism and a break from secularism. This was a blessing for the BJP which for the first time experienced a conjunction of interests between the party and the middle classes which agreed that India’s Muslims were being pampered by the Congress.

For long the BJP had sought to demonstrate that the Congress was “pseudo-secular” because it had been interventionist with regard to the reform of Hindu personal laws while it refrained from interfering with those of Muslims. To the BJP and many other people outside the BJP circles, the Shah Bano episode was a touchstone of this.

The passage of the MWA gave them a significant opportunity to revitalise this critique and further condemn the double standards of the state’s constitutional law and jurisprudence. The political fallout was severe. Having done this, the Congress felt compelled to mollify Hindu militants demanding concessions on the Ayodhya dispute.

During this period, the BJP and its affiliates launched a nationwide campaign to construct a Rama temple at the site of the Babri mosque in Ayodhya. Hindu activists had been claiming that the mosque stood at the exact spot believed to be the birthplace of Lord Rama, and its use by Muslims was sacrilegious. A campaign to unlock the gates of the mosque and for the construction of a Rama temple at Ayodhya was launched by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) in 1984. The stir took a popular militant turn when it made the liberation of Rama’s birthplace the cornerstone of its programme, which was supported by the BJP and the RSS. The unresolved dispute in Ayodhya seemed to offer an opportunity for Hindu nationalism to garner support for the BJP.

The District and Sessions Judge of Faizabad, KM Pandey, ordered the locks of the Babri mosque, which had remained padlocked for decades, to be opened for Hindu worshippers on 1 February 1986. Arun Nehru, one of the chief advisors of the prime minister, was thinking in terms of a quid pro quo to appease the Hindu militants in exchange for the concession to Muslim clerics on the MWA. The unlocking of the gates was “manipulated through a judicial order” with the aid of the Uttar Pradesh government.

The operatives seized on the Ayodhya controversy to pre-empt the VHP plan for a large-scale agitation with little grasp of the explosive situation this would create. Significantly, this came as a surprise to the VHP because they feared that they were about to lose their most important issue for mobilisation. The Congress did not take into account that the VHP would view this concession as the first step towards the demolition of the Babri Masjid.

By the autumn of 1989, the atmosphere had become surcharged with tension when the VHP announced plans to perform shilanyas (consecration) in different parts of the country and carry bricks, manufactured for the purpose, to Ayodhya to lay the foundation stone of the Rama temple. In the face of this, the Congress government allowed the VHP to perform shilanyas at the disputed site. The shilanyas ceremony took place in November 1989, just days before the commencement of the parliamentary election. Unlike the opening of the gates to the Babri Masjid, which was supposed to have been undertaken under a court order, there was no such justification this time, except the hope that there would be a turnaround in the Hindu vote.

The party leadership reckoned that it could not afford to lose the initiative to the BJP and the Hindu support it was aiming for. Allowing the shilanyas to take place at the disputed site, although Rajiv Gandhi later admitted this was done under the erroneous impression that the area fell outside the disputed land, proved to be a breaking point. This tactical surrender had set the party on a perilous course,and the BJP benefitted.The BJP, VHP, and RSS launched a campaign to convince Hindus that the shilanyas had been the result of their efforts to compel the Uttar Pradesh government to concede to their demand. On the other hand, these actions inflicted serious damage on the Congress’s political base in Uttar Pradesh and inflamed Muslim sentiment.

Rajiv Gandhi wanted to be present in Ayodhya at the time of the shilanyas but his handlers misguided him. In the end, he did not go to Ayodhya but instead went on a sadbhavna yatra which aimed at undoing the damage caused by opening the gates of the mosque and the shilanyas. In the event, Rajiv Gandhi launched his party’s election campaign with a meeting at Ayodhya-Faizabad on 3 November 1989. He was under pressure to start the campaign from Faizabad and not Nagaur as was earlier decided.It was widely expected that he would assert on this occasion his own and his party’s commitment to secularism but he instead promised to establish Rama Rajya. This was apparently not part of the draft of the speech and was added later in Faizabad.

Senior Congress leader from Uttar Pradesh, Kamlapati Tripathi, warned that this craven approach would destroy the unity and integrity of the country and the only course open to the party was mass mobilisation to counter the VHP moves. Needless to say, the party leaders did not heed this advice as it was keen to undercut the BJP’s temple campaign with its own gestures to appease Hindu sentiment but it backfired as the Sangh Parivar rapidly seized the initiative. The leadership admitted that permitting the shilanyas was a mistake, but it was too late to retrieve the ground it had lost.

Rajiv Gandhi may have believed in the faltered Nehruvian model,not learning anything from indian history.All the Hindu leaders in India,have failed when they tried to appease the muslim fundamentalists.The classic example is Gandhi,who witnessed a Hindu genocide in Malabar,after he tried to appease the muslims,by the totally unwanted Khilafat movement.Hence we need not now discuss the upstart,Rahul Gandhi.

© Ramachandran