Saffron groups conspire to curb social-liberation struggle!
The MHRD got
an anonymous letter that blamed the Ambedkar Periyar Study Circle in the IITM
at Chennai, citing a single page note about certain political, economic and
social issues. The MHRD officials, habituated always to turn blind eye to various atrocities and large scale
corrupt activities in floating tenders, in appointment of teaching and
non-teaching faculty and in various other fields in the administration of the
IITM, sprang up from their seat and called for the report of the Director,
IITM, on the basis of that anonymous letter.
They forgot
the instructions of the Government of India which codify the procedure for
dealing with anonymous and pseudonymous complaints. What they found was that
the anonymous unsigned petition was in favour of Chaturvarna Hinduism, which is
promoted by the saffron terrorists, through a variety of overt and covert
methods . So, the MHRD officials forgot their duty to follow the codified
procedure to deal with such unsigned complaints and thought that their duty was
to protect Chaturvarna. So they wielded their power and pen and called for the
report of the Director, IITM.
It
was now the turn of the Director, IITM, who got the MHRD letter, to prove that
he was more loyal to the anonymous petitioners of the saffron group than the
prescribed office procedure. He had to prove to the MHRD that he was no less an
enthusiast than the officials of the MHRD in flouting law, when it came to
protecting Chaturvarna. He did not, therefore, issue any memo to the students
of the APSC but simply sent an email banning the APSC. After all, they have the
traditional authority to do anything against the people whose liberation from
the stranglehold of the Brahmins was the life mission of Ambedkar and Periyar.
That
was 2300 years old history. Chanakya branded the people who oppose Chaturvarna
as ‘wicked’ and commanded the Government to crush those
‘wicked’. He recommended the government not to punish them openly but to adopt
conspiratorial criminal methods listed out by him as Secret Science to crush those
critics. “In order to protect the institution of the four castes, such
measures as are treated of in secret science shall be applied against
the wicked.” - Chapter I in Book XIV titled ‘Secret Means’ - Arthasastra.
So, the IITM authorities believed that they could do anything against the APSC
which opposed Chaturvarna. Accordingly, the Director plunged
into action and banned the group, unheard and unconcerned.
What
this Director and the officials of the MHRD had forgotten was that the
Constitution of India, which the saffron terrorists who are in power in now
want to change, has not been changed yet. That remains, for the present, an
impediment to their earnest desire to resurrect the Chaturvarna era conceived
of by Chanakya. And, this Constitution
imposes certain safeguards against the whimsicality of the authorities who
wield administrative power:
1. Duty to act
fairly is part of fair procedure
envisaged under Art.14 and 21 of the Constitution.
2. Every activity of a public authority or those under
public duty or obligation must be
informed by reason and guided by public interest. (LIC Vs. Consumer Education and Research
Centre -1995 – 5 SCC 48)
Rule of Law
The official who
exercises administrative power must ensure that he acts in accordance with the
Rule of Law. Rule of Law means that it is the law which rules and not the man.
That law is based on the principles of freedom, equality, non-discrimination,
fraternity, accountability and non-arbitrariness and is certain, regular and
predictable, using the word ‘law’ in the
sense of ‘jus’ or ‘lex’ both. Rule of Law is an ideal. It is a modern name for
Natural Law.
a.
“The only essential
point that has to be kept in mind in
all cases … that the administrative authority should act fairly, impartially, and
reasonably. (Keshv Mills Co Ltd Vs.
Union of India – 1973 1 SCC 380).
b. The validity of an administrative
action must be judged by the reasons
recorded therein and not in the light of the subsequent explanation or
affidavit. (Mohinder Singh Gill Vs.Chief Election Commissioner 1978 – 1 SCC 405
and Union of India Vs. E.G. Nambudri –
1991 3 SCC 38).
c.
Reasoned decisions can be there
only when there is procedural fairness.
d.
The decisions of the
administrative authorities unaccompanied
by reasons will have the effect of whittling
down the efficacy of the
constitutional provisions of Art. 32, 136,
226 and 227 which provide for judicial review of administrative action.
But, the
Dean of the IITM who chose to ‘ban’ the APSC did not adhere to any of the
procedure, enshrined in the Constitution and repeatedly emphasized through the
Hon’ble Supreme Court. Now that the suppressed ‘wicked’ people rose in revolt,
the Chaturvarna protagonists found that they were caught red-handed. How to
come out of the mess is the problem faced by them now. They chalked out a
strategy and and are implementing it, through various TV debate shows, and
other media. They try to justify the action of the Dean by painting the APSC
black and projecting them as Naxalites (and thereby anti-nationals), atheists,
etc., The intention is to spread the impression that these people do not have
any right at all and should not expect any of their right to be recognized by
the authorities. What they forget is that the Dean has not examined any such
reason and recorded and communicated the same to the APSC before communicating
his decision to ‘ban’ the APSC. It was later that the Dean had condescended to
meet the APSC.
Post-decisional justifications
There is no
meaning in coming up various explanations to project the APSC as a diabolical
body, when the Dean had acted in violation of Constitutional provisions
pertaining to the elementary principles of natural justice. The opportunity of
being heard had not been given to the APSC before the Dean decided to ‘ban’; to
‘derecognise’ the APSC for ‘misuse of privileges’. The later explanation by the
Dean, through another Dean, that the
APSC had ‘failed to follow the code of conduct for student bodies’ does not
help the Dean to justify his earlier action. Post decisional reasons, without
pre-decisional hearings, are totally unacceptable in Administrate Law &
Procedure. Hon’ble Supreme Court does not give any credence to such
post-decisional reasons or hearings.
a.
Post-decisional hearing is a mere empty formalistic ritual.
b.
“It is common experience that once a decision had been taken, there is a
tendency to uphold it and a representation may not yield any fruitful purpose”.
(Shephard vs. Union of India
(1987 – 4 SCC 431)
Hate became Love overnight
Now that their
design has been exposed nationally and internationally, the Saffron groups have,
overnight, changed their pattern of attack / defence in every TV show and in
the social media to protect the Dean of the IITM. Their century-old hatred
towards Ambedkar became love overnight. Their strategy now is to divide the
Non-Brahmins by supporting
Ambedkar and opposing Periyar.
In every TV show, the hard core saffron ideologists and / or their foils
follow the same strategy. Their intention is to divide the opposition to
win the war, their war for establishing the apartheidistic chaturvarna system.
But, these
people forget that the world has not forgotten how abusive these saffron
terrorists were when they wanted to denigrate Ambedkar. Their man, the vicious
pen-wielder Arun Shorie, had written the book 'Worshipping False Gods' with a
calculated motive of sullying the image
of Ambedkar in every possible manner by filling the pages of his book with lies
and half truths.
Every saffron
terrorist who comes up with his strategy of supporting Ambedkar now, to defend the
action of the IITM in having banned the APSC, must be confronted with the following
accusations made by Arun Shourie in the book “Worshipping False Gods”. Shourie accuses Ambedkar that, one, he was
against India getting freedom without a separate electorate for the
"depressed classes", Two, he was inducted into the Viceroy’s
Executive Council to wrest dalits away from Hindu society, hence dividing India
further; three, he was busy serving British causes as a member of the cabinet
instead of supporting the freedom fervor at that moment.
Red-carpet to Arun Shourie in IITM
Such
an Arun Shourie was considered as a ‘celebrity’ and was invited for ‘delivering
a lecture’ at Saarang-2000 (held from 21 to 25.01.2010) at the IITM. Saarang is
a “national annual student cultural festival of the Indian Institute of
Technology” during which prizes that promise a summer school scholarship in
Cambridge or an internship with National Geographic are given.
Arun Shourie spoke on the
“Role youth can play in governance and policy making”. That was permissible for
the Dean of IITM, because Arun Shourie was and is of saffron group. That he was
abusive of Ambedkar was in sync with the approach and outlook of the IITM.
Because, the IITM has been appropriated by the Brahmins for themselves.
We have not forgotten
The saffron terrorists who
have now started defending the IITM in their APSC ban fiasco believe that we
have forgotten how the Brahmins vilified Ambedkar for a century, both during
and after the freedom struggle. But, we have not and will not.
The Brahmins were
prepared even to abdicate the independence struggle led by the Congress
when their privileged social status was sought to be dethroned in the proposed
independent India. They did not bother about even splitting the Congress for
that purpose. It was left to the lower classes to stomach the insult and co-
operate with the others to fight the British, even though they knew very
well that the Brahmins were not ready even to discuss about the eradication of
caste system. “It was customary to hold a separate session for social reform
immediately after the Congress in the same pandal. Even this was objected to by
the political radicals and social tories’ like Tilak and others in the Congress
who threatened to burn the pandal if allowed to be used by the Social
conference. In a letter to Mr. Ranade, Mr. Surendranath Banerjee wrote: “The
raison de’tre for excluding social questions from our deliberations is that
were we to take up such questions it might lead to serious differences
ultimately culminating in a schism, and it is a matter of the first importance
that we should prevent a split…” (Page
51- B.R. Ambedkar – The politics of emancipation- A. M. Rajasekhariah – Sindhu
Publications Private Ltd. Bombay 1)
All good things in IITM to be cornered only by Saffrons?
The Times of India dated
17.01.2010 reported that the “IIT Madras has entered into a collaboration with
the India Habitat Centre to conduct the south zone finals of the Habitat Young
Visionary Award, to get students to
write and argue about the change they want to see, the change they want to make and to air their vision of the country. The winner gets to enjoy a
fully-paid summer school to Cambridge or an internship at the National
Geographic, Hong Kong.”
The Times of India
report added, “While IIT Madras has in the past contributed cash proceeds from
Saarang to not-for-profit organisations, for the first time the event will
promote social causes through its events. The organisers have also lined up
‘Essence’, a three-day youth summit as part of Saarang with the objective of shaping future leaders through
constructive discussions and workshops on youth and policy-making. The final day of the
summit will end with an open public
policy debate between participants, mediapersons, NGOs, civic bodies and
other stakeholders.”
No Kancha Ilaiyah! No
Arundhati Roy! No Medha Patkar! No one
who would against the social evils continue to be perpetrated to perpetuate
Chaturvarna was and will ever be called for the Saarang. No student would be shaped to be a future leader by the
IITM if he expresses how he is suffering from the ill-effects of Chaturvarna. Ambekdar
has said Hinduism has no sense of justice**. But, Saarang will not allow
discourse on Ambedkar as that will not be a constructive discussion, as per their standards. There is an unseen
fiat in Saarang that the discussion on Ambedkar’s principles will not be
considered as public policy debate. The
APSC which espouses the causes of the suppressed people in the Hindu fold is
told by the present action of the Dean that they have no right to write and argue about the change they want
to see, they have no right to have any desire to visualise the change they want to make, and that
they do not have the right to air their
vision of the country.
The IITM, which gets Rs.
1300 crores per annum as government grant has become a Neo-Brahmadeyam. It is
their law and not the Indian Constitution which is allowed to prevail there.
The suppressed will remain subjugated as long as they allow the oppressor to
divide the suppressed.
"When a dominating class wants to keep a subject
class under its control, what better way to distract it than to keep it fighting
amongst itself. If a subject class is kept busy fighting each other as
individuals and trying to gain small advantages or favouritism over each other,
it will be all the easier to keep them in check. A subject class which is
divided on the basis of arbitrary and superficial differences such as sex, race
or nationality will always remain subject” - Samuel Gompers (1850-1924),
President of the American Federation of Labour.
=====================================
Note**: "Hinduism is bankrupt, there is
in it nothing upon which to base a democracy . There is in it no sense of
justice"-Ambedkar -Quoted in C S Braden, War, Communism and World Religions and
in Page 28 of the book of A M Rajasekhariah
No comments:
Post a Comment