NO Integrity & Honesty in Judiciary

सुभाष चन्द्र बोस : नायक या खलनायक

भारत में 20 साल की सख्त तानाशाही चाहते थे नेताजी सुभाष चंद्र बोस

देश की आजादी के बाद पंडित जवाहरलाल नेहरू के नेतृत्व में बनी सरकार पर हाल ही में नेताजी सुभाष चंद्र बोस के रिश्तेदारों की जासूसी करने के आरोप लगे। इससे हर बात में साजिश ढूंढने वालों और पार्टियों के प्रवक्ताओं को अपना यह अजेंडा आगे बढ़ाने का मौका मिल गया कि नेताजी दरअसल पंजित नेहरू से ज्यादा देशभक्त थे। 'देखा, मैंने कहा था न' तकिया कलाम इस्तेमाल करने वालों, जिनमें कुछ बुद्धिजीवी भी हैं, ने मीडिया और राजनीतिक गलियारों को इन आरोपों को लेकर हर तरह से बिजी रखा।

हर दिन कोई न कोई यह मालूम होने का दावा करता है कि बोस के साथ क्या हुआ था और लगे हाथ इसके लिए नेहरू व कांग्रेस को जिम्मेदार बता देता है। इस नई अवधारणा के खिलाफ आने वाली किसी बात या विचार को तुरंत ही देशद्रोहियों का काम करार दिया जाने लगा है। मगर नेताजी के प्रशंसक नाजी जर्मनी और जापान के साथ हुई उनकी संधि को नजरअंदाज कर देते हैं।

नेताजी ने लंदन से 1935 में पब्लिश हुई अपनी किताब 'IndianStruggle'  में लिखा है कि भारत को ऐसा पॉलिटिकल सिस्टम चाहिए, जिसमें फासीवाद और कम्यूनिज़म का मेल हो। इसे उन्होंने साम्यवाद कहा था। नेताजी ने 1935 में रोम की यात्रा की थी, ताकि अपनी किताब की कॉपी इटली के तानाशाह मुसोलिनी को भेंट कर सकें। नेताजी उसे बहुत पसंद करते थे और उसके 'आदर्शों' पर आजीवन चलना चाहते थे।

बोस थोड़े प्रतिक्रियावादी विचारों के थे और इसी वजह से महात्मा गांधी और पंडित नेहरू जैसे शांतिवादी नेताओं से उनकी नहीं बनती थी। मगर इनके बीच टकराव 1935 में नहीं, काफी पहले हो गया था।

बोस ने साल 1928 में कलकत्ता में इंडियन नैशनल कांग्रेस के सालाना अधिवेशन का आयोजन किया था। वहां पर उन्होंने 2,000 से ज्यादा वॉलनटिअर्स के साथ फुल मिलिट्री स्टाइल में गार्ड ऑफ ऑनर का आयोजन किया था। इनमें से कुछ अफसरों की यूनिफॉर्म में थे और उनके कंधे पर धातु के बिल्ले लगे हुए थे। अपने लिए बोस ने कलकत्ता से ऑपरेट करने वाली ब्रिटिश कंपनी से ब्रिटिश मिलिट्री ऑफिसर की ड्रेस सिलवाई थी। उन्होंने फील्ड मार्शल की बैटन भी ली हुई थी। इस सेरिमनी में नेताजी ने जनरल ऑफिसर कमांडिंग का टाइटल अपनाया हुआ था। गांधी जी ने हैरान होकर इस पूरे इंतजाम को 'सर्कस' करार दिया था। मगर बोस का ऐसे शो और सैन्यवाद के लिए प्रेम आगे भी जारी रहा।

1938 में हरिपुरा में हुए कांग्रेस के 51वें अधिवेशन के दौरान बोस प्रेजिडेंट थे। उन्होंने अपने लिए बहुत बड़ी सेरिमनी का आयोजन किया था, जो ठीक वैसी ही थी, जैसी सेरिमनी भारतीय राजा- महाराजा जीत के बाद आयोजित करते थे। नेताजी ने कथित रूप से 51 बैलों द्वारा खींचे जा रहे रथ पर सवार होकर एंट्री की थी। 2 घंटे तक जुलूस निकला था, जिसके साथ भगवा साड़ियां पहने 51 लड़कियां चल रही थीं। 51 बैंड बाजों के साथ चल रहा जुलूस 51 गेटों से होकर गुजरा था। साउथ ईस्ट एशिया में जब उन्होंने इंडियन नैशनल आर्मी और इंडियन इंडिपेंडेंस लीग का नियंत्रण संभाला, तब भी उन्होंने ऐसे ही शो किए।

अक्टूबर 1943 में बोस ने प्रविज़नल गवर्नमेंट ऑफ फ्री इंडिया (अर्जी हुकूमत-ए- आजाद हिंद ) का ऐलान किया। उन्होंने अपने आप ही हेड ऑफ स्टेट यानी प्राइम मिनिस्टर, युद्ध मंत्री और विदेश मंत्री की उपाधियां दे दीं। वह चाहते थे कि भारत आजाद हो, तो पहली वाली उपाधि उनके पास रहे। उन्होंने सभी भारतीयों से कहा कि वे समर्पण और निष्ठा जताएं और जो कोई उनका विरोध करेगा, उसे उनकी आर्मी या सरकार मार सकती है (कुछ घटनाएं बताती हैं कि कई लोगों को टॉर्चर किया गया था और कुछ को मौत के घाट भी उतार लिया गया था। यह काम या तो बोस के ऑर्डर पर या उनकी जानकारी में रहते हुए किया गया था)।

इंडियन नैशनल आर्मी का ऐलान ऐसा था, "अगर कोई शख्स अर्जी हुकूमत-ए-आजाद हिंद, इंडियन नैशनल आर्मी या हमारी साथी निपों आर्मी (जापानी सेना) के इरादों को नहीं समझता है, तो इससे भारत को आजाद करवाने में मुश्किल होगी। इसलिए उसे मार डाला जाएगा या सरकार, इंडियन नैशनल आर्मी या निपों आर्मी के क्रिमिनल लॉ के आधार पर कड़ी सजा दी जाएगी।"

इसी साल सिंगापुर में दिए अपने भाषण में बोस ने कहा कि आजादी के बाद भारत को 20 साल तक क्रूर तानाशाही की जरूरत होगी। उस वक्त सिंगापुर डेली और संडे एक्सप्रेस (अब बंद हो चुका है) ने उनका भाषण छापा था। इसमें बोस के हवाले से लिखा था,  'जब तक थर्ड पार्टी यानी ब्रिटिश हैं, लड़ाई खत्म नहीं होगी। यह बढ़ती चली जाएगी। वे तब ही जाएंगे, जब तक भारत पर कोई मजबूत तानाशाह 20 साल तक भारत पर राज करेगा। भारत में ब्रिटिश राज खत्म होने के कम से कम कुछ साल तक तानाशाही रहनी चाहिए। कोई और संविधान इस देश को संवार नहीं सकता। भारत के लिए यह जरूरी है कि शुरुआत तानाशाह से हो।' लेकिन लग रहा था कि इस वक्त तक नेताजी ने फासीवाद के बजाय नाजीवाद को पसंद करना शुरू कर दिया था। तोक्यो यूनिवर्सिटी के स्टूडेंट्स के बीच 1944 में दिए भाषण में उन्होंने कहा था कि भारत को नैशनल सोशलिज़म (नाजीवाद) और कम्यूनिज़म के बीच की फिलॉसफी चाहिए।'

जाहिर है, नेहरू और नेताजी के बीच थोड़ी- बहुत जो मित्रता रही होगी, वह इस वक्त तक खत्म हो चुकी थी। बोस अपनी कल्पना हिटलर और मुसोलिनी जैसे वर्ल्ड लीडर्स में करते थे, जबकि पंडित नेहरू इन दोनों नेताओं और उनकी विचारधाओं से नफरत करते थे। वह फासीवाद को नापसंद करते हुए कह चुके थे कि फासीवाद और कम्यूनिज़म के बीच का कोई रास्ता नहीं हो सकता। उनका मानना था कि फासीवाद दरअसल पूंजीवादी व्यवस्था का आधार है।

फिर भी, जब अगस्त 1945 में संदिग्ध एयर क्रैश में बोस की 'मौत' की खबर आई, पंडित नेहरू ने अपने पूर्व सहयोगी को श्रद्धांजलि देते हुए कहा था, 'देश की आजादी के मकसद के लिए उन्होंने अपनी जिंदगी अर्पित कर दी। वह न सिर्फ बहादुर थे, बल्कि आजादी से प्यार करते थे। उनका मानना था कि सही या गलत, जो कुछ उन्होंने किया, देश की आजादी के लिए किया। मैं वैसे तो कई मायनों में उनसे सहमत नहीं था और उन्होंने हमें छोड़कर फॉरवर्ड ब्लॉक बना लिया था, फिर भी उनकी नेक नीयत पर कोई शक नहीं कर सकता। उन्होंने अपने तरीके से देश की आजादी के लिए आजीवन संघर्ष किया ।

नव भारत टाइम्स

Judge's Appointment

Net Neutrality

What’s Net Neutrality?

It is the principle that all traffic on the Internet must be treated equally by Internet service providers. Those advocating Net neutrality believe all bits of data are equal, and, therefore, should not be discriminated on the basis of content, site or user. This has largely been the default mode since Internet started.

Why has there been so much of noise about Net neutrality in recent months?

First, India’s top telecom company Bharti Airtel, towards the end of last year, decided to charge subscribers extra for use of apps such as Skype and Viber. These apps compete with the voice and messaging services of telecom providers, and are even cheaper. There was uproar, after which Airtel stayed its decision, saying it would wait for regulator Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s (TRAI) Consultation Paper on Regulatory Framework for Over-the-top (OTT) services.

Then, Facebook brought to India internet.org, a pre-selected bouquet of Web sites offered free to subscribers of Reliance Communications. There was not much controversy then.

The buzz became really big after TRAI put out a 118-page consultation paper asking the public for its opinion on 20 questions, most of them about how the Internet can be regulated. Views were also sought on Net neutrality.

By evening of Tuesday, over 4.2 lakh mails had been sent in support of Net neutrality through the savetheinternet.in Web site. Political parties such as the Congress, political leaders such as Arvind Kejriwal and celebrities such as Shah Rukh Khan joined the bandwagon, as has the comedy group All India Bakchod through a video. All of them argue why the Internet should not be touched. TRAI will be open to taking comments till April 24, and counter comments by May 8. In between all this, Airtel last week launched Airtel Zero, which is a free offering of a slew of apps that sign up with the telecom provider. On Tuesday, Flipkart pulled out of the platform after initially agreeing to be on it, saying it was committed to Net neutrality.

Who benefits from Net neutrality ? How ?

Every Internet User. Think through how you would like to browse the Internet. Wouldn’t you like to access the Web without worrying about how differently videos will be charged compared to other forms of content? Wouldn’t you like to access the Web without the telecom service provider getting to serve some sites faster than others? If yes for both, you are pro-Net neutrality.

New ventures benefit too. In fact, one of the key reasons for start-ups to have come up in a big way in recent decades is the openness of the Internet. The Internet has reduced transaction costs and levelled the playing field.

A start-up can come up with an app today, and can immediately attract a global audience. The likes of Googles and Facebooks could have struggled to grow if the Internet had not been open.

Then, why do we need to think about regulating the Internet?

Essentially because the telecom companies do not like the way the apps are riding on their networks for free. The companies complain that voice-calling and messaging apps are cannibalising on their business. On top of all this, it is they who have to invest billions in getting access to spectrum and build networks as also adhere to regulations.

So, absence of Net neutrality will benefit telecom companies?

It could make them a gatekeeper to a valuable resource, a role that supporters of Net neutrality feel will be misused to create winners and losers. They could charge companies a premium for access to users.

It would not be a telecom companies versus internet players issue, as could be mistakenly perceived. For, the absence of Net neutrality could also benefit established Internet companies who are flush with money. They could nip challengers in the bud with vastly higher payoffs to telecom companies.

Is this an issue in India alone?

No. The Federal Communications Commission just recently voted for what is seen as strong Net neutrality rules. This is to ensure Internet service providers neither block, throttle traffic nor give access priority for money. Europe is trying to correct a 2013 proposal for Net neutrality, in which privileged access was allowed to ‘specialised services.’ This was vague and threatened Net neutrality. Chile last year banned zero-rated schemes, those where access to social media is given free to telecom subscribers.

From Legal World

For the First Time in Google History

Baba Saheb Dr Ambedkar

A Nation Builder’s Pride of Place

On the 125th birth anniversary of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, on April 14, India still finds itself unable to induct him into the pantheon of greats unquestioningly. His statue, with its ubiquitous electric blue suit, may be a common sight at bus stands, bastis and universities, but it hardly brings out the fact that his life is one that was overshadowed by iconography and idolatry. We forget that Ambedkar was one of modern India’s first great economic thinkers, its constitutional draftsman and its first law minister who ensured the codification of Hindu law.

Assimilating Dr. Ambedkar into the national pantheon of the freedom struggle is difficult because his life was one of steady accretion of ideas, of making a stand on rights and of standing up to social wrongs. His biggest fights were with fellow Indians and not with foreign rulers. He led no satyagraha against the British, he led no march on Delhi, he broke no repressive law to court arrest for it. In fact, his father and ancestors had willingly served in the British Army even in the days of the East India Company. He himself served as a member of the Viceroy’s Executive Council. His often stated view was that British rule had come as a liberator for the depressed classes. Despite all this, he was in agreement with the nationalists, that India must be ruled by Indians.

In a corner

His status in the national pantheon, where he occupies a corner all by himself, and slightly apart from the nationalist heroes of independence, is somewhat like his status in school. He once wrote: “I knew that I was an untouchable, and that untouchables were subjected to certain indignities and discriminations. For instance, I knew that in the school I could not sit in the midst of my classmates according to my rank [in class performance], but that I was to sit in a corner by myself.”

“ B.R. Ambedkar walked a tightrope, between securing a modern society for all Indians and ensuring that a modern state stabilised around a constitutional architecture of social change. ”

This separateness was to lead him to assert in more than one instance, that the depressed classes he represented, were not to be counted among the Hindus. He famously chose to separately represent the depressed classes at the Round Table Conference in the 1930s, where Gandhiji was sent as the sole representative of the Congress. Having secured a separate electorate for the depressed classes, he had to give it up in the face of a fasting Mahatma, whose death he did not want ascribed to those outside the pale of varnashrama dharma. After this, the Poona Pact of 1932 ensured a greater number of seats for the depressed classes, but it was within a common Hindu electorate. Ambedkar never was sure that he had secured a fair bargain.

He never fully forgave Gandhiji for the pressure exerted on him. He told his followers, “There have been many mahatmas in India whose sole object was to remove untouchability and to elevate and absorb the depressed classes, but everyone has failed in their mission. Mahatmas have come, mahatmas have gone but the untouchables have remained as untouchables.” Ambedkar told Dalits: “You must abolish your slavery yourselves. Do not depend for its abolition upon god or a superman. ...We must shape our course ourselves and by ourselves.”

A fight for rights

The question of whether the depressed classes were to be counted among Hindus or separately, continued to be relevant especially when the country was going to be partitioned on religious lines. There were some Dalit leaders like B. Shyam Sunder, who vociferously said: “We are not Hindus, we have nothing to do with the Hindu caste system, yet we have been included among them by them and for them.” With the support of the Nizam of Hyderabad and Master Tara Singh of the Akalis, Shyam Sunder launched the Dalit-Muslim unity movement and urged his people to join hands with Muslims.

The imminent arrival of Independence saw a constituent assembly being elected to draw up a constitution for the new nation. Dr. Ambedkar was first elected to the assembly from an undivided Bengal. Because he lacked the requisite support in his home province of Bombay, he was forced to seek election from Bengal, a province he was unfamiliar with. Throughout the 1940s, Ambedkar and the Congress clashed over issues of the rights and the representation of the depressed classes. Ambedkar was a critic of the party’s positions on many an issue, which he believed were inimical to Dalit interests. Therefore, Sardar Patel personally directed the Bombay Congress to select strong Dalit candidates who could defeat Dr. Ambedkar’s nominees. Despite the politics, once in the Constituent Assembly, Ambedkar worked closely with his Congress colleagues in formulating and drafting the Constitution.

Consequent to the announcement of Partition, fresh elections had to be held for only the seats from West Bengal. Dr. Ambedkar would not have possibly been elected again. At this stage he was co-opted by the Congress, into the seat vacated by M.R. Jayakar from Bombay. Dr. Rajendra Prasad wrote to B.G. Kher, then Prime Minister of Bombay and said: “Apart from any other consideration we have found Dr. Ambedkar’s work both in Constituent Assembly and the various committees to which he was appointed to be of such an order as to require that we should not be deprived of his services. As you know, he was elected from Bengal and after the division of the province he was ceased to be a member of the Constituent Assembly commencing from the 14th July 1947 and it is therefore necessary that he should be elected immediately.” Even Sardar Patel stepped in to persuade both Kher and G.P. Mavalankar, who was otherwise slated to fill in the vacancy caused by Jayakar.

It is against these adverse circumstances, that we must evaluate Ambedkar’s achievements in the Constituent Assembly. He walked a tightrope, between securing a modern society for all Indians and ensuring that a modern state stabilised around a constitutional architecture of social change. Granville Austin has rightly described the Indian Constitution drafted by Ambedkar as “first and foremost a social document. ... The majority of India’s constitutional provisions are either directly arrived at furthering the aim of social revolution or attempt to foster this revolution by establishing conditions necessary for its achievement.”

Making a mark

The Constituent Assembly was the hallowed ground from which Ambedkar made his most lasting contribution to all people of independent India, Dalit, savarna and non-Hindu alike. As chairman of the drafting committee, it was his interventions in the debates of the assembly that were soon to become definitive expositions on the intent of the framers. He also joined Nehru’s cabinet as the first Law Minister of independent India.

He explained to the Assembly, “On the 26th January 1950, we are going to enter into a life of contradictions. In politics we will have equality and in social and economic life we will have inequality. In politics we will be recognising the principle of one-man-one-vote and one-vote-one-value. In our social and economic life, we shall by reason of our social and economic structure, continue to deny the principle of one-man-one-value. How long shall we continue to live this life of contradictions? How long shall we continue to deny equality in our social and economic life? If we continue to deny it for long, we will do so only by putting our political democracy in peril….”

Despite his insistence on individual liberties being enshrined as fundamental rights, Ambedkar was a realist as to their worth as guarantees. He said: “The prevalent view is that once the rights are enacted in law then they are safeguarded. This again is an unwarranted assumption. As experience proves, rights are protected not by law but by social and moral conscience of the society.”

Political battles

Ambedkar’s constitution was barely finished and adopted, when he plunged into piloting the Hindu Code Bill. There was opposition from the President of India, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, as well as a host of Congressmen like Pattabhi Sitaramayya, but Ambedkar kept pushing for the passage of the Act, by the Constituent Assembly, which functioned as an interim parliament. Nehru was advised by Rajagopala Ayyangar and others that it was better to wait till after the general election of 1952. When it became apparent that the bill was going to be deferred, Ambedkar resigned in protest from the cabinet in September 1951. The Hindu Code Bill finally came about in 1956.

In 1952, in independent India’s first general election, he was defeated from the Bombay North Constituency by a Dalit from the Congress. Though he was elected to the Rajya Sabha immediately thereafter, he made a second attempt in 1954 to enter the Lok Sabha through a by-election for the Bhandara seat. He failed again.

His political battles and his voracious capacity for intellectual work began affecting his health. His spirit to fight on and his spiritual quest though continued undaunted. In the 1930s, his first wife, Ramabai, who was dying, had asked him to take her to Pandharpur on a pilgrimage. The entry of untouchables was barred there. He then promised to build a new Pandharpur outside Hinduism.

After her passing, he declared at Yeola in 1935: “I was born a Hindu, I had no choice. But I will not die a Hindu because I do have a choice.” In the twilight of his life, on October 14, 1956, two months before his death, he left Hinduism to become a Buddhist. His Brahmin-born second wife and nearly six lakh of his followers followed suit.

As he lay down for the night on December 5, 1956, Dr. Ambedkar had by his side, the preface to his latest book, The Buddha and his Dhamma. He wanted to work on it but it was not to be. The book was published posthumously as Babasaheb, never woke up and moved into history on December 6, 1956.

How do we remember Ambedkar? He gave the nation a constitution that has endured, he forced it to look shamefaced at its own social inequities, and he gave the most oppressed Indians, the hope of a better nation to come. He may not have been a hero of the war of Indian independence, but he is the hero who built an independent India. It is time that we cease to keep him ‘slightly apart’.

                                           (Sanjay Hegde is a Supreme Court lawyer)

From the Corridors of Law

Legal World