When
after 30 years of protests the Bhopal refugees are still 'begging for
justice', and when after decades of peaceful resistance, the tribals
simply have got drowned out by dam after dam, one starts wondering about
the very viability of these protests. Dharampal's writings on 'Civil
Obedience in Indian Tradition' may need revisiting
JP's introduction -
"... he declares: ‘If the dates, (1810-12) were just advanced by some 110 to 120 years, the name of the tax altered and a few other verbal changes made, this narrative could be taken as a fair recital of most events in the still remembered civil disobedience campaigns of the 1920s and 1930s.’ That the events described in the correspondence published here were not exceptions, is borne out by other instances given by Shri Dharampal of similar actions that were either contemporary or of earlier times in other parts of the country.
It would appear from a perusal of the papers reproduced here that there had developed in the course of Indian history an understanding between the ruled and the ruler as to their respective rights and responsibilities. Whenever this traditional pattern of relationship was disturbed by an autocratic ruler, the people were entitled to offer resistance in the customary manner, that is, by peaceful non-cooperation and civil disobedience. It also appears that in the event of such action, the response of the ruling authority was not to treat it as unlawful defiance, rebel-lion or disloyalty that had to be put down at any cost before the issue in dispute could be taken up, but as rightful action that called for speedy negotiated settlement.
Such powers, and apparently well-practised methods, of popular resistance as described herein could not have sprung up suddenly from nowhere. They must have come down from the past as part of a well-established socio-political tradition. The fact these powers should have survived until the beginning of the nineteenth century even in areas that had long been under autocratic Muslim rule bears testimony to both the validity and vitality of the ancient tradition.
... The saddest part of the story Shri Dharampal unfolds in the following pages tells of the conscious and calculated efforts of the British to destroy every vestige of the old tradition, which they looked upon as a continuing challenge to the very founda-tions of their rule. ...
... Shri Dharampal’s discussion of the place of satyagraha in post-independence and democratic India. An oft-repeated criticism of government in free India—and one which has not lost its significance by repetition—is that it adopted without change the bureaucratic machine that had originally been designed by the colonial power for purposes of economic exploitation and suppression of dissent. One of the more malignant features of that machine is its continued adherence to the British imperialist theory that it is the duty of the people to obey first and then to protest. In fact, that view has been further strengthened by the convenient plea that the bureaucracy is no longer an instrument of an alien government but that of a democratically established national government. As a result, whenever there is a fast, a stoppage of work, a withdrawal of cooperation, the official reaction is neither talk, nor settlement until the popular action is withdrawn or put down. The consequence is that more often than not, the people concerned are driven to violent action, after which the gov-ernment usually surrenders or makes a compromise. ... "
JP's introduction -
"... he declares: ‘If the dates, (1810-12) were just advanced by some 110 to 120 years, the name of the tax altered and a few other verbal changes made, this narrative could be taken as a fair recital of most events in the still remembered civil disobedience campaigns of the 1920s and 1930s.’ That the events described in the correspondence published here were not exceptions, is borne out by other instances given by Shri Dharampal of similar actions that were either contemporary or of earlier times in other parts of the country.
It would appear from a perusal of the papers reproduced here that there had developed in the course of Indian history an understanding between the ruled and the ruler as to their respective rights and responsibilities. Whenever this traditional pattern of relationship was disturbed by an autocratic ruler, the people were entitled to offer resistance in the customary manner, that is, by peaceful non-cooperation and civil disobedience. It also appears that in the event of such action, the response of the ruling authority was not to treat it as unlawful defiance, rebel-lion or disloyalty that had to be put down at any cost before the issue in dispute could be taken up, but as rightful action that called for speedy negotiated settlement.
Such powers, and apparently well-practised methods, of popular resistance as described herein could not have sprung up suddenly from nowhere. They must have come down from the past as part of a well-established socio-political tradition. The fact these powers should have survived until the beginning of the nineteenth century even in areas that had long been under autocratic Muslim rule bears testimony to both the validity and vitality of the ancient tradition.
... The saddest part of the story Shri Dharampal unfolds in the following pages tells of the conscious and calculated efforts of the British to destroy every vestige of the old tradition, which they looked upon as a continuing challenge to the very founda-tions of their rule. ...
... Shri Dharampal’s discussion of the place of satyagraha in post-independence and democratic India. An oft-repeated criticism of government in free India—and one which has not lost its significance by repetition—is that it adopted without change the bureaucratic machine that had originally been designed by the colonial power for purposes of economic exploitation and suppression of dissent. One of the more malignant features of that machine is its continued adherence to the British imperialist theory that it is the duty of the people to obey first and then to protest. In fact, that view has been further strengthened by the convenient plea that the bureaucracy is no longer an instrument of an alien government but that of a democratically established national government. As a result, whenever there is a fast, a stoppage of work, a withdrawal of cooperation, the official reaction is neither talk, nor settlement until the popular action is withdrawn or put down. The consequence is that more often than not, the people concerned are driven to violent action, after which the gov-ernment usually surrenders or makes a compromise. ... "
Comments
Aparna Krishnan Nityanand Jayaraman,
after 30 years if the Bhopal victims are still left begging for justice
... do we need to look deeper, and differently ? Satyagraha works in a
different polity, not in this caricature of a democracy we are living in
...
Rahul Banerjee both
violent and nonviolent mass resistance to power and exploitation have
been there in all societies throughout human history but centralised
power has always prevailed in the long run and that is why the human
race is heading to its doom!!
Aparna Krishnan There
has always been centralization (- maybe now corporatization has given a
differnt .meaning and power to the term). But the traditional indian
polity (by dharampal's writings) seems to have been structured in a way
that dissent thro' satyagraha was accepted and treated as valid. the
british sytem, and our current system which is the same, seem to have
invalidated the same.
Aparna Krishnan "...
Up to this time, like those I knew, I had taken it for granted that
non-cooperation and civil disobedience were of very recent origin in
India and owed their practice here to Gandhiji. Again, like many others I
had also assumed that while Gandhiji
had made them more perfect and effective he himself had initially
derived them from Thoreau, Tolstoy, Ruskin and other Europeans. But
re-reading Hind Swaraj, I found Gandhiji observing: ‘In India the nation
at large has generally used passive resistance in all departments of
life. We cease to cooperate with our rulers when they displease us.’"
Rahul Banerjee i
will have to revisit dharampal and check his data because it seems
unlikely that dissent was tolerated in india prior to the british
Aparna Krishnan "
... number of friends several of whom had known Gandhiji personally and
had many times participated in his non-cooperation and civil
disobedience movements. I found them similarly fascinated with the
information I had acquired. The fascination however,
to an extent, was tinged with incredulity. It seemed to many that the
above observation of Gandhiji was more symbolic of his idealisation of
the past than a confirmation that non-cooperation and civil disobedience
had been one of the traditional modes of protest against 6authority in
India. The never ending repetition of claims that the ordinary people of
India had from time immemorial been subservient to whoever ruled over
them; that they had little or no regard for such mundane things as
society or politics seemed to have had a deep impact not only on those
who knew Gandhiji well and followed him into battle but equally on those
who were considered hostile or even indifferent to him. Such
incredulity, it seemed to me, could be met only through a more detailed
search and assembling of primary material on the subject."
Nityanand Jayaraman Dear Aparna Krishnan
Yes, one needs to look deeper and differently. The target of the
satyagraha is not merely the state, but also other people, and most
importantly the satyagrahis and the Bhopalis who are reaffirming to the
world and themselves that their cause is just.
Aparna Krishnan For how long ? Through how many deaf years ?
Nityanand Jayaraman I
agree. Everything, nearly everything, barring self-immolation and
targeted violence have been tried. I have spent 16 years with the
campaign and am well aware of the diversity and richness of tactics and
direct actions undertaken. But as long as the support
for Bhopal from members of the public arises from a sense of pity
rather than a realisation of solidarity to oneself, one's future and
others, this situation is not going to change.
Aparna Krishnan There
is a some deep failure of our methodology and strategy and perspective
... that the Narmada tribals and the Bhopal survivers sit in the midst
of unconcerned and unheeding crowds in Jantar Mantar, hoping to awaken
some empathy and understanding, with no success.
No comments:
Post a Comment